The Red blunders: The communists have consistently betrayed national interests

Read more below

---

Rudrangshu Mukherjee   |   Published 21.08.07, 12:00 AM

---

If nationalism, as the historian Jack Gallagher was fond of quipping, devours its parents, communism consumes its own ideology. Communism was born under the sign of internationalism. The project of world revolution did not recognize national boundaries. Thus, it is funny to see Indian communists today positioning themselves as great protectors of national sovereignty.

Indian communists have always had a very uncomfortable relationship with nationalism. Some of the major debates and divisions within the Communist Party of India have revolved around the question of nationalism and the national movement. And, if the truth be told, these debates do not exactly hold up the comrades in an edifying light. On the scorecard of nationalism, the performance of Indian communists is poor to say the least. (On internationalism, their score is irrelevant, since a world communist revolution is not even a pipe dream after the collapse of socialism and the exposure of the many crimes of the socialist regimes in Soviet Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China, in Albania, under Pol Pot in Cambodia and so on.)

To begin with the most notorious example that communists have never been able to live down: 1942. The CPI was officially against the Quit India movement. What needs to be emphasized here is that this decision of the CPI was not based on any understanding of the Indian situation by Indian communists. The opposition to the clarion call of 1942 was the outcome of a diktat emanating from Moscow. When Hitler attacked his erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union, in 1941, the fight against Nazism overnight became a People’s War for all communists. The directive from Moscow was carried by Achhar Singh Chinna, alias Larkin, who travelled from the Soviet Union to India with the full knowledge of the British authorities. In India, it meant communists had to isolate themselves from the mainstream of national life and politics and see British rule as a friendly force since the communists’ “fatherland”, Soviet Russia, was an ally of Britain. A critical decision affecting the strategic and the tactical line of the party was thus taken defying national interests at the behest of a foreign power, whose orders determined the positions and actions of the CPI.

In 1948, within a few months of India becoming independent, the CPI under the leadership of B.T. Randive launched the line that this freedom was fake (yeh azadi jhooti hai), and argued that the situation in India was ripe for an armed revolution. The Randive line led to the expulsion of P.C. Joshi, who believed that freedom from British rule was a substantial achievement and that, tactically, the communist movement would gain by supporting leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru who, Joshi said, represented a “progressive” trend within the Congress. Apart from the inner-party struggle, what needs to be noted here is that the Randive line, which completely misread the national mood, was the direct outgrowth of a policy formulated by the Comintern (or the Cominform, as it had renamed itself), in other words, Moscow. The directive of Moscow to the Indian communists was that Congress should be opposed since it was no more than a satellite of imperialism. The retreat from this line was also sounded from Moscow in the form of an editorial entitled, “For a Lasting Peace”, in the mouthpiece of the Cominform.

The defeat of Joshi in the inner- party struggle camouflaged an important and lasting tension within the CPI. This concerned the party’s ideological and tactical position regarding the Congress. Joshi represented a trend within the party that believed in closer ties with the Congress, especially Nehru. It argued that, given the incipient nature of the proletarian movement in India in the Forties and Fifties, it was necessary to seek an alliance with the Congress since it was the party that was closest to the masses and it had leaders who were favourably inclined to socialism and its global future. It was Joshi’s firm belief that the democratic revolution in India could be completed only through an alliance between the national bourgeoisie represented within the Congress and the CPI. While the opposite trend saw the Congress as a bourgeois party and therefore hostile to the interests of the working class and the communist movement. The Congress could not be trusted, a suspicion that was strengthened when the first communist government in Kerala led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad was dismissed by Nehru in the summer of 1959.

Three years later, in 1962, when the Sino-Indian border conflict occurred, a section of communists, among whom Namboodiripad was prominent, chose to uphold the cause of China and portrayed India as the aggressor. This was yet another occasion when the communist movement found itself isolated from the national mainstream. It led eventually to a split in the CPI with the pro-Chinese faction leaving the parent party to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A rump remained as the CPI — a party totally subservient to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and some would say even fully funded by it.

To these dates — 1942, 1948, and 1962 — when the communists chose not to serve Indian interests but to act at the behest of either Moscow or Peking (as it was then) can now be added another date: 2007. The communists are poised at the moment to withdraw support from the government led by Manmohan Singh unless the latter agrees to renegotiate the Indo-US nuclear treaty. The opposition of the communists is based not on substantial objections to the terms of the treaty, but to the fact that it brings India closer to the US. Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the CPI(M), made this clear in an article in People’s Democracy. He wrote, “The Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the United States….The Left is clear that going ahead with the agreement will bind India to the United States in a manner that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.”

These, as anyone will recognize, are a series of ideological assertions and not rational arguments. The Left, since the Nineties, has lost all its ideological moorings: socialism is gone and China has turned to market capitalism; within India it has no political base anywhere save in West Bengal and Kerala. With no policies of its own, it has accepted economic reforms and begun to woo capital with some gusto in West Bengal. With everything gone, the Left clings to its anti-Americanism as a last ideological anchor. In the present context, however, the Left’s anti-US position echoes what the Chinese Communist Party is saying on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Karat, whether he likes it or not, is only parroting, like his predecessors did in 1942, 1947 and 1962, a political line coming out of a foreign country, in this case one that is hostile to India. The intensity of his opposition is a reflection of the enduring discomfort of the communists with a pro-Congress stance.

Given its track record, the Left’s attempt to see itself as a protector of India’s national sovereignty and autonomy is a disgrace. Communists in India have acted, at critical periods, at the behest of the Soviet Union or China. In so doing, communists have sacrificed India’s national interests. They are about to do the same now.

The history of Indian communism is the story of a series of historic blunders. The red flag has never fluttered because those who hold it aloft know only how to blunder. What is pathetic is that even the blunders of the communists are not their own!

'Modi govt is not fascist': Prakash Karat's salvo at Sitaram Yechury reveals schism in the Left

 'Modi govt is not fascist': Prakash Karat's salvo at Sitaram Yechury reveals schism in the Left

It’s Karat’s way of hitting back at Yechury’s decision that led to the CPI(M) and the Congress contesting the West Bengal assembly elections together.

Ashok K Singh September 13, 2016 17:59:29 IST

'Modi govt is not fascist': Prakash Karat's salvo at Sitaram Yechury reveals schism in the Left

Within a few days of CPI(M) ideologue Prakash Karat declaring that the Narendra Modi government is ‘authoritarian’ but not ‘fascist’, the JNU student organisations affiliated to Left parties are celebrating their victory over the ABVP in union elections as crushing defeat of ‘fascist’ forces.

In between — after Karat’s opinion piece in The Indian Express and before the JNUSU election results — Kanhaiya Kumar dared Karat at a speech in Kolkata: "There is a certain veteran CPM leader who is also a former student of the JNU. He said that the Modi government was authoritarian and not fascist. To him I want to say that comrade, if you don’t want to fight anymore, please retire and go to New York. We will fight our battle."

Modi govt is not fascist Prakash Karats salvo at Sitaram Yechury reveals schism in the Left

A file image of CPM leader Prakash Karat. PTI

The timing of Karat’s position chiding the Left and liberal opinion for calling the Modi government fascist, sweeping win of the Left in JNUSU elections and Kanhaiya’s audacious fulminations against Karat may be a coincidence; the deep schism among the Left over the nature of the BJP government is not. It exposes the confusion and the crisis facing the Left parties.

The crises and the weaknesses of the Left have many shades of ironies, which either they don’t want to see or they ignore for avowed ideological purity.

Communist parties for a very long time have got used to patting themselves on the back for their sterling performance of affiliated student outfits in the JNU even as their performances in the national and state-level elections have been steadily declining.

While their base and influence have been shrinking among workers, peasants and middle classes — the ideological relevance holds in a small, post-graduate university. It’s a small island of their bastions in the heart of Delhi that reminds them of their ideological relevance amid steady decline elsewhere. That’s the irony.

At a time when they should been closing ranks within the party and working to unitedly face a ‘right-wing authoritarian’ or a ‘communal fascist’ government, the CPI(M) is quibbling over the ‘nature’ of the Modi government.

It’s quibbling that cost the CPI(M) as much as the post of the Prime Minister, which was offered to Jyoti Basu in 1996 at the head of United Front government. Basu was inclined but the CPI(M) hardline apparatchiks vetoed the proposal. Later, Basu himself described the moment as ‘historical blunder’.

The current differences in the party over the nature of the BJP and the Congress too might lead to another historical blunder in the future. For the moment, it exposes the sharp divisions in the CPI(M) between the general secretary Sitaram Yechury and former general secretary Prakash Karat.

When communist apparatchiks differ and debate, the common people, who are supposed to form the support base of the party, get confused and confounded. In simple terms, their differences relate to whether or not the CPI(M) should align with the Congress to fight and defeat the BJP.

Yechury is a pragmatist. He favours close electoral cooperation with the Congress to challenge the BJP. He views the Modi government espousing ‘fascist’ tendencies and argues that the BJP-RSS are working to establish a ‘fascist Hindu Rashtra' in India. He has used the analogy of Germany of 1930s to warn that just as Adolf Hitler used aggressive nationalism to establish fascism, the Modi government was using nationalism to turn the country into a fascist religious state.

Yechury’s line of argument opens the door for forming a front with the Congress. Karat’s disavowal of Yechury’s contention completely shuts the door on cooperation with the Congress.

Karat, as a purist ideologue, has determined that the Modi government is showing authoritarian tendencies but it doesn’t have traits of classical fascism as it developed in Europe. He views both the BJP and the Congress as representatives of identical social and economic interests. Therefore, Karat doesn’t advocate proximity with the Congress to challenge the BJP.

Karat’s openly anti-Yechury stand is well timed too. One, it’s Karat’s way of hitting back at Yechury’s decision that led to the CPI(M) and the Congress contesting the West Bengal assembly elections together. Two, it’s an attempt to preempt Yechury from taking initiative to form a front with the Congress and Samajwadi Party against the BJP in UP and later at the national level. He is also warning Yechury against aligning closely with the Congress in Parliament. Karat favours uniting the non-BJP and the non-Congress parties on one platform.

While the CPI(M) is riven with internal divisions, in the JNUSU, the Left student organisations came together to defeat the BJP’s efforts to strengthen its influence on the campus. The JNUSU victory is erroneously viewed by large sections of the Left and liberal voices as a major success.

It’s erroneous because over the years, the communists have lost the political space in the country they occupied. The united CPI was the second largest party in the Lok Sabha from the first general elections in 1952 till the third general elections in 1962. In the current Lok Sabha, the CPI(M) with nine members is ranked ninth from the top, the CPI has one member.

The Left parties, their supporters and sympathizers seem to take great pride in having larger than life presence in JNU. When they dominate the debate in the JNU and in auditoriums of Delhi, they fancy they can fight the battle to protect the interests of the powerless and dispossessed. That they can fight the battle to stop Modi government from pursuing ‘authoritarian’ or ‘fascist’ policies.

In a country which has the world’s highest number of poor, highest number of children with malnutrition, one of the worst drop-out rates in schools, Yechury and Karat’s party has been debating the character of the State and political parties for 70 years and has come to no conclusion.

That’s the irony of the Left.

Prakash Karat has led CPM towards a historic blunder by shooting down Congress alliance

 Prakash Karat has led CPM towards a historic blunder by shooting down Congress alliance

Kumar Ketkar

KUMAR KETKAR

29 January, 2018 10:00 am IST

CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat / wikimedia commons

Text Size: A- A+

Indian communists have come to regret many political blunders – from opposing Quit India to supporting Emergency. Saying no to anti-Modi alliance could be another.

Angry and frustrated that his theories were being distorted and propagated by some self-styled radical advocates, Karl Marx is believed to have said in 1883: “What is certain is that I am not a Marxist.”

This was said in response to French intellectual activist Jules Guesde in the context of the failed revolt of the proletariat in 1871, known as the “Paris Commune”.  Marx accused Guesde and his associates of “revolutionary phrase mongering”.

I cannot dare say that Prakash Karat, the former general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], does not know the anguish expressed by the philosopher in whose name his party exists. Last week, Karat proposed in his draft resolution before the party’s Central Committee that both the BJP and the Congress are “neo-liberal”, and therefore, to form a broad “anti-BJP front” has no relevance.

In the shocking formulation, Karat further said that the RSS is a “semi-fascist” organisation with a hardcore communal agenda, but the Hindutva of the BJP does not make the ruling party fascist. The CPI(M) is a radical anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-communal party, and cannot have a political alliance with the Congress in any form, he said.

It defies all dialectical logic that the RSS is a “semi-fascist” organisation, but its political front is not even “semi-fascist” but just “neo-liberal”. But Karat’s line was accepted, and general secretary Sitaram Yechury’s thesis was rejected by a very good margin of 55 to 31. That in itself is a break from the established convention; after all, communist party general secretaries are known to be all-powerful, evende jure heads of states.

Karat later explained that a perfect inner democracy prevails in the functioning of the party, and the Central Committee discussed all views before coming to the conclusion that there should be “no alliance or understanding” with the Congress. He further said there was no factionalism in the party.

The communists are past masters in semantics and ideological skullduggery. They also provide “dialectical” explanations to defend the “official” line. They distinguish between “revisionists” and “reformers” and “renegades”. These are sharp abuses in the communist lexicon. So now, Yechury will be a revisionist and Karat a revolutionary.

What would Stalin have done?

The CPI(M) has always prided itself in defending Stalin, even when its twin, the CPI, had given up its Stalinist position. But in a strictly historical context, the CPI(M) cannot claim the Stalinist legacy.

Stalin formed a front with the “arch-imperialist” Winston Churchill and leader of global capitalism Franklin Delano Roosevelt to defeat Adolf Hitler. Stalin was clear in his thinking that Nazism and fascism posed a major threat to democratic and socialist forces around the world. Indeed, after the defeat of Nazi Germany, even Churchill paid rich tribute to the Red Army and to Stalin’s visionary leadership. It is obvious that Karat is not following the Stalin line.

Indeed, Stalin himself is reported to have advised to the Indian communist delegation in 1950 that the “armed revolutionary struggle” in Telengana was unwarranted and time was not ripe for revolution in India. He said that unless a “bourgeois democratic revolution” was completed, it would be futile to launch a revolutionary uprising. And who was the medium of that democratic revolution? The Congress, under the leadership of Nehru.

Comrade Dange, head of the CPI, followed that line, while B.T. Ranadive took the strident anti-Congress line and formed the breakaway CPI(M) in 1964.

But later, in the 1980s, both the communist parties came together under the banner of the Left Front. The Left Front and the BJP had an understanding of sorts in Parliament to attack Rajiv Gandhi on the issue of Bofors. After the defeat of the Congress in 1989, the Left Front and the BJP both supported the V.P. Singh government from the outside. Can anybody say that Singh’s government would have survived even for those 11 months without the unwritten but tacit understanding between the BJP and the Left? The government only collapsed when the BJP withdrew support after L.K. Advani was arrested by chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in Bihar.

Yet again, the BJP and the Left Front displayed “unholy” bonhomie while opposing the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008. Dr Manmohan Singh’s government survived without the support of the Left, and in fact, won even more seats in 2009. The Left sharply declined in the Lok Sabha and its fall continued in 2011, when in West Bengal, it was roundly routed by Mamata Banerjee.

Today, the condition of the CPI(M) is so pathetic that it has no chance of recovery even in Bengal, where it ruled for 34 years from 1977 to 2011.

Another political blunder?

After his proposal was shot down, Yechury noted in an interview that if he is condemned as “pro-Congress” because he advocated a broad anti-Modi, anti-BJP front with the Congress, his critics could be condemned as “pro-BJP”, because their line gives advantage to the Modi government.

Whether Karat calls this “inner democracy” or “factionalism” is irrelevant. The party has gone back to the same Dange-Ranadive debate which caused the split in 1964 – whether Nehru (and Indira Gandhi) were the representatives of the “bourgeois liberal democratic” forces or “running dogs of capitalism”.

Communists in India have quite often apologised for their “political mistakes”; for opposing the Quit India Movement in 1942, supporting the British effort of war, for supporting the Emergency, for endorsing and later condemning the Mao Zedong regime in China, for refusing the prime ministership offered to Jyoti Basu (at least he did, by calling it a blunder), for misreading the Telengana situation in 1949 as “ripe for revolutionary uprising” and suppressing the Naxalites in 1969.

Will Karat and the CPI(M) repent later for yet another “historic blunder” by not joining the anti-Modi, anti-BJP, anti-fascist front, and in effect, facilitating the Modi regime?

Modi and Shah must have felt relieved that there is no united alternative emerging to their government.

What Lula’s Win Means for the Opposition to Modi

 What Lula’s Win Means for the Opposition to Modi

Like Brazil under Bolsonaro, India’s democracy is facing an existential threat. But the response of most Indian political parties suggests they are oblivious to the danger posed by the BJP.

What Lula’s Win Means for the Opposition to Modi

Photo: Reuters

Jishnu Dasgupta

POLITICSWORLD

23 HOURS AGO

A bit more than two years into the first term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Prakash Karat of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) raised quite a storm in the teacup. He argued that the Bharatiya Janata Party, under Modi, while “rightwing authoritarian”, was not “fascist”. The reason, said Karat, was that the conditions of Indian capitalism were not ripe for fascism.

The article triggered a lot of discussion on his understanding of fascism, of economics, and indeed, the model of base-superstructure that Karat was obviously following. In terms of realpolitik, it was seen as a salvo against his successor as party leader, Sitaram Yechury, and the alliance the latter had concluded with the Congress.

The theoretical point at stake was that if India faced ‘full-blown’ fascism, then the Left was duty-bound to unite with all anti- and even non-fascist forces to defeat it. Contrariwise, while it might (or not) be desirable to unite with other parties against the authoritarianism of the BJP, a united front was not mandatory. Hence, it was a matter of choice not necessity – of tactics and not strategy.

While the Left, traditionally, has felt obliged to give some kind of theoretical justification for its tactical decisions, it appears clear that many other parties also do not see the threat posed by the ‘hydra-headed’ Sangh parivar as an existential threat to Indian democracy. Even if not part of the NDA, some continue to support them in parliament (eg. the YSR Congress of Jaganmohan Reddy and the BJD of Naveen Patnaik, though KCR’s Telangana Rashtra Samiti appears to have had a change of heart) or seek to challenge the Sangh on its own agenda (eg. Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party). All other opposition parties continue to jostle for space among themselves, with little or no effort to create a common space. Whatever be the lip service, the reality on the ground  is that there is no grand alliance to defeat the BJP nationally. The Index of Opposition Unity remains pitifully low, because large parts of the opposition feel no need for it.

One Brazil does not a Left wave make

After the victory of Lula da Silva in the run-off round of the presidential election in Brazil on October 30, 2022, Colombia’s first leftist president, Gustavo Petro, retweeted a triumphalist map of Latin America depicting the rise of the Left in Latin America. The resurrection of the veteran leftist Lula (who described himself as having been buried alive) and the defeat of the far-right extremist Jair Bolsonaro justifiably brought much joy to the Left. But it is fallacious to read into the Brazil result signs of a clear trend, internationally or even regionally.

To be clear, there is no global pattern of an ascendant Left, or even a regression of the Right. Social Democrats have won in Germany and in Australia and retained power in Denmark, but Jacinda Ardern’s hold in New Zealand appears wobbly at best. Sweden will have its first government with neo-Fascist elements and Italy its first government led by a neo-Fascist. In Hungary, Viktor Orban has crushed all opposition again, while Vladimir Putin in Russia and the Law and Justice Party in Poland appear as unshakable as ever. There are no signs of Erdoğan weakening in Turkey. Philippines has reinstated the memory and the son of the erstwhile dictator, Marcos. Just last week, Benjamin Netanyahu has staged a comeback in Israel, and the most far-right formation in that country’s history is poised to assume power. From the junta in Myanmar to the theocrats of Iran and the nationalists in Thailand, dissent-crushing remains a favourite activity. The Arab Spring has all but vanished from memory. Other forms of dictatorship, such as Xi Jinping’s in China and Kim Jong Il’s in North Korea, MBS in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria continue to tighten their nooses. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally drew more votes than any ultra-right formation in history. In the UK, the Tories are yet to lose power.

And in the (still) lone superpower, Trumpism is alive and kicking. Despite the predicted right-wing ‘wave’ failing to materialise, hundreds of election-denying, misogynist, homophobic, violence-encouraging Republicans have been elected at the state and federal levels, and their party has recaptured the House of Representatives. Trump himself has announced he will run again for president in 2024; even if he is not nominated by his party, the equally stridently rightist Ron DeSantis is considered the other Republican front runner.

The Left in Latin America is not homogeneous

In Latin America itself, there is no uniform shade of pink or red. The leftist regimes being celebrated include the annoyingly conservative AMLO in Mexico, the Communist successors of Castro in Cuba, the Bolivarian governments in Venezuela and Bolivia, the former guerrilla Petro in Colombia, and the self-proclaimed “coolest dictator in the world”, Nayib Bukele of El Salvador.

Lula’s victory, too, is in no way that of an unalloyed left, like the trade unionist’s first triumph in 2003. Lula himself had sought to distance himself from the ‘church-destroying’ regimes of Venezuela and Cuba on the campaign trail, reminding voters of his long-standing relationship with the church. He even assured the church leaders that he was personally against abortion and would remain neutral in any legislative move in this regard. He also picked long time rival (though on the centre left) Geraldo Alckmin as his running mate. Moreover, the threat to democracy posed by Bolsonaro drew support from sections historically inimical to the left. Thus, the campaign for a citizen’s manifesto denouncing Bolsonaro as a wannabe dictator that was signed by hundreds of thousands of Brazilians in August was led by people from various walks and hues – politicians, environmental and indigenous activists, artists, academics, but also impresarios and industrialists. Simone Tebet, the Liberal candidate who came third in the first round of the presidential elections, also played an active part in the runoff, often campaigning in person with Lula – all to protect democracy.

Another key to the victory is provided by the Uruguayan political scientist Andres Malamud. He pointed out that since 2018, while the Left have won in six out of eleven elections in Latin America, the opposition won in ten out of eleven. “More than ideology, it’s because voters are fed up”, he wrote.

The scenario in India

In India, we have been told from the noughties, anti-incumbency no longer works. Chief ministers have been re-elected in numerous states, supposedly based on their work. The UPA win in 2009 marked the appearance of this pro-incumbency on the national stage, when Manmohan Singh became the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to be re-elected after completing a full term. So, are Indians less prone to being fed up than their Latin American counterparts? Is that why Bill Clinton campaign’s famous maxim, “the economy, stupid” did not work in India in 2019? Or is it that the opposition remains pitifully weak and thus unable to press home the advantages of anti-incumbency?

The BJP has continued its winning run in state after state. It has either won elections or gobbled up opposition governments in Haryana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and the North East. The intimidation of opposition politicians by investigative agencies, the power of corporates and of corporate media, the scare tactics of mobs in the streets and trolls on the net make for a formidable combination indeed, especially when deployed alongside a strong political organisation backed by RSS cadre. Even if the opposition, or large chunks of it, unite, it is not clear whether they would win or not.

Against this backdrop, it should be evident that the question or dilemma that Prakash Karat posed, and with which this article began, was a false and irrelevant one.

When Karat’s article was first published, a democratic and firmly anti-communal student of mine was aghast. What emerged in an ‘outside the classroom’ discussion was that he and his friends thought Karat’s position was nothing but ideological chicanery.

If there is an obligation to explain one’s tactical position in ideological terms, they argued, surely there is an even greater ethical imperative to recognise and respond to the greatest challenge the republic has faced since its founding, when the future of the constitution and democracy is under a cloud. Whether you call this ‘fascism’ or not, the political obligation is to fight and fight unitedly. And this holds true for all those claiming to be opposed to the RSS-BJP. The struggle might be uphill, but the alternative is to fall into an abyss. I had to agree.

At the very least, politicians should not be allowed to claim that they do not know the consequences of surrender, compromise, kowtowing or petty squabbling. They must be asked clearly, loudly and repeatedly where they stand – on the side of democracy and the republic, or against it? They must, along with all people who value democracy, secularism and the idea of India, take a stand.

Jishnu Dasgupta is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History, Serampore College.

దేశ రక్షణ కోసం మోడీ ప్రభుత్వాన్ని సాగనంపాలి

 దేశ రక్షణ కోసం మోడీ ప్రభుత్వాన్ని సాగనంపాలి 

Sun 25 Sep 04:21:08.005457 2022

- దేశ రక్షణ భేరిలో సీపీఐ(ఎం) ప్రధాన కార్యదర్శి ఏచూరి

అమరావతి : దేశాన్ని రక్షించుకోవాలంటే కేంద్రంలోని మోడీ ప్రభుత్వాన్ని సాగనంపాల్సిందేనని సీపీఐ(ఎం) ప్రధాన కార్యదర్శి సీతారాం ఏచూరి అన్నారు. దేశరక్షణ భేరీలో భాగంగా విజయవాడలోని జింఖానా గ్రౌండ్‌లో శనివారం జరిగిన బహిరంగసభలో ఆయన మాట్లాడారు. ఆర్థికదోపిడీ ఆపాలన్నా, రాజ్యాంగాన్ని, లౌకికవాదాన్ని, ప్రజల హక్కులను కాపాడుకోవాలన్నా మోడీ సర్కారును గద్దెదించడమొక్కటే మార్గమని ఆయన అన్నారు. కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వాన్ని, అది పెంచి పోషిస్తున్న మతోన్మాదాన్ని వక్తలు విమర్శించినప్పుడు సభకు హాజరైన వారు పెద్దఎత్తున కరతాళధ్వనులు చేశారు. సీతారాం ఏచూరి మాట్లాడుతూ ఏడేండ్ల బీజేపీ పాలనలో నిరుద్యోగం, పేదరికం, ధరలు విపరీతంగా పెరిగాయని అన్నారు. దేశ వ్యాప్తంగా 42శాతం మంది నిరుద్యోగులు ఉన్నారనీ, ఉపాధి అవకాశాలు లేకపోవడంతో ప్రజల కొనుగోలు శక్తి తగ్గి దేశ ఆర్థిక వ్యవస్థ దెబ్బతింటోందని చెప్పారు. తినడానికి తిండికూడా లేని అభాగ్యుల సంఖ్య పెరుగుతోందన్నారు. అదే సమయంలో పెద్దపెద్ద పెట్టుబడిదారులకు 11 లక్షల కోట్ల రూపాయల బ్యాంకు రుణాలను రద్దు చేశారనీ, మరో రూ.2 లక్షల కోట్లు రాయితీలు ఇచ్చారని తెలిపారు. ఇదంతా సాధారణ ప్రజల కష్టార్జితమేనని, వారు రూపాయి, రూపాయి కూడగట్టి బ్యాంకుల్లో దాచుకున్న డబ్బులేనని వివరించారు. కార్పొరేట్లు రుణాల తీసుకుని ఎగ్గొడుతున్నా మోడీ సర్కారు పట్టించుకోవడం లేదని విమర్శించారు. వాటిని వసూలు చేస్తే దేశం అన్ని రంగాల్లోనూ ముందుక వెళ్తుందని, సంక్షేమ, అభివృద్ధి కార్యక్రమాలకు నిధుల కొరత ఉండదని అన్నారు. ప్రజల సంక్షేమాన్ని పూర్తిగా వదిలేసిన మోడీ ప్రభుత్వం దేశంలో ఉన్న సహజ వనరులను, ప్రభుత్వ రంగ సంస్థలు, రవాణా వ్యవస్థలను తెగనమ్ముతోందన్నారు. దేశంలో ఇప్పటికే ఉన్న, కొత్తగా పుట్టుకొచ్చిన ఐదుగురు మహా కోటీశ్వరులు గుజరాత్‌కు చెందిన వారేనని చెప్పారు. ఉపాధి హామీ పనులకు రూ.73 వేల కోట్లు కూడా ఖర్చుపెట్టలేని కేంద్రం గుజరాత్‌కు చెందిన వేదాంతకు రూ.80 వేలకోట్ల మైనింగ్‌ సబ్సిడీ ఇచ్చిందని చెప్పారు. ఒకవైపు కార్పొరేట్లకు భారీ ఎత్తున లభ్ది చేకూరుస్తున్న మోడీ ప్రభుత్వం అందే సమయంలో ముస్లింలు, క్రిస్టియన్లపై దాడులు చేస్తూ లౌకికతత్వానికి తూట్లు పొడుస్తోందని వివరించారు. లైంగికదాడికి గురైన బిల్కిస్‌బానో కేసులో నేరస్తులను శిక్ష పూర్తికాకుండానే వదిలేసిందని, వారిని హీరోలుగా చిత్రీకరిస్తోందని అన్నారు. బీమా కోరేగావ్‌ కేసులో మేధావులు, రచయితలను జైల్లో కుక్కి నాలుగేళ్లవుతున్నా ఛార్జిషీటు దాఖలు చేయలేదని చెప్పారు. ఇంతకన్నా దుర్మార్గం మరొకటి ఉంటుందా అని ప్రశ్నించారు. ప్రజాస్వామ్య హక్కులపై దాడి జరుగుతోందని, ప్రశ్నించిన వారిపైనా, ప్రతిపక్ష నాయకులపైనా సీబీఐ, ఇడి దాడులు చేయిస్తూ భయభ్రాంతులకు గురిచేస్తోందని తెలిపారు. కర్నాటక, గోవా, మహారాష్ట్రలో బీజేపీ ఓడిపోయినా ప్రభుత్వాలను ఏర్పాటు చేసిందని, దీనివెనుక సీబీఐ, ఈడీ ఉన్నాయని తెలిపారు. మోడీ ప్రభుత్వ హయాంలో 11 వేలమంది యువకులు ఉపాధి లేక ఆత్మహత్య చేసుకున్నారని తెలిపారు. మహిళలపై దాడులు 20 శాతం పెరిగాయని వివరించారు. దళితులపై దాడులకు అంతేలేదని వివరించారు. భూములు సాగుచేసుకుంటున్న దళితులు, మైనార్టీలను ఆ భూముల్లో నుండి తరిమేస్తూ వాటిని భూస్వాముల పరం చేస్తున్నారని తెలిపారు. మీడియా సంస్థలను భయపెట్టి ప్రతిపక్షాలపై తప్పుడు ప్రచారాలకు దిగుతోందని తెలిపారు. ఈ నేపధ్యంలో ప్రతి ఒక్కరూ ప్రజాస్వామ్యాన్ని కాపాడుకునేందుకు ముందుకు రావాల్సిన అవసరం ఉందన్నారు. నిజమైన దేశ భక్తులకు పోరాడే సమయం వచ్చిందని అన్నారు.

సీపీఐ(ఎం) ఏపీ రాష్ట్ర కార్యదర్శి వి.శ్రీనివాసరావు మాట్లాడుతూ కేంద్రం పట్ల వైసీపీ సానుకూల వైఖరి అనుసరిస్తోందన్నారు. కేంద్రం రాష్ట్రానికి అన్యాయం చేస్తున్నా మాట్లాడటం లేదన్నారు. విశాఖ ఉక్కును అమ్మేస్తుంటే కార్మికులే పోరాడుతున్నారని కడప ఉక్కు ఫ్యాక్టరీని ఇంతవరకు నిర్మించలేదని విమర్శించారు. పోలవరం పునరావాసం గురించి పట్టించుకోవడం లేదన్నారు. ముంపు లెక్కలు సక్రమంగా లేకపోవడంతో ప్రభుత్వం చెబుతున్న దానికన్నా ఎక్కువ ప్రాంతం నీట మునుగుతోందన్నారు.

పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు డిజైన్‌లో తప్పులున్నాయని చెబుతున్న ప్రభుత్వం ముంపు లెక్కలు సక్రమంగా ఉన్నట్లు భావిస్తోందని, ఇదెక్కడి పద్దతని ప్రశ్నించారు. పాత ముంపు లెక్కలను పక్కనబెట్టి కొత్తగా లెక్కలు తీయాలని డిమాండ్‌ చేశారు. పూర్తిస్థాయిలో ముంపు బాధితులను గుర్తించి, వారికి పరిహారం, పునరావాసం పూర్తి చేసిన తరువాతే పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు పనులు కొనసాగించాలన్నారు. సీపీఐ(ఎం) రాష్ట్ర కార్యదర్శివర్గ సభ్యులు సిహెచ్‌.బాబూరావు అధ్యక్షతన జరిగిన ఈ సభలో పార్టీ కేంద్ర కమిటీ షభ్యుల ఎం.ఏ.గఫూర్‌, రాష్ట్ర కార్యదర్శివర్గ సభ్యులు సుబ్బరావమ్మ, సీనియర్‌ నాయకులు పి.మధు, గిరిజన నాయకులు మొడియం నాగమణి ప్రసంగించారు.

కేంద్రంలో బిజెపి అదేశాలు.. రాష్ట్రంలో జగన్‌ అమలు : సిపిఎం రాష్ట్ర కార్యదర్శి శ్రీనివాసరావు

Sep 24,2022 16:44

విజయవాడ : రాష్ట్రంలో మోడీ రాజ్యం నడుస్తోందని.. కేంద్రంలో బిజెపి అదేశాలు ఇక్కడ జగన్‌ అమలు చేస్తున్నారని సిపిఎం రాష్ట్ర కార్యదర్శి వి.శ్రీనివాసరావు అన్నారు. శనివారం విజయవాడలో జరిగిన 'దేశ రక్షణ బేరి' బహిరంగ సభలో వి.శ్రీనివాసరావు మాట్లాడుతూ.. ''రాష్ట్రంలో ఒక అడ్డగోలు ప్రభుత్వం నడుస్తుంది. చెత్త పన్ను వేస్తే ప్రజలు ప్రభుత్వాన్ని చెత్త బుట్టలో వేస్తారు. డబ్బు లేకపోతే మోదీ జుట్టు పట్టుకుని రూ.36 వేల కోట్లు తీసుకురండి. వైసిపికి పార్లమెంట్లో సంఖ్య బలం వున్న కేంద్రాన్ని ప్రశ్నించలేకపోతున్నారన్నారు. విశాఖ ఉక్కు అమ్మకానికి సిద్ధం అయితే రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం ఒక్క మాట మాట్లాడలేదని విమర్శించారు. ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్‌ అధానిప్రదేశ్‌గా మార్చుతున్నారు. కౌలు రైతులను ప్రభుత్వం గాలికొదిలేసింది. ఈ రెండు సంవత్సరాల్లో అయిన జగన్‌ ప్రభుత్వంలో మార్పు రాకుంటే ప్రజలే బుద్ధి చెబుతారు. కమ్యూనిస్ట్‌ల కాలం చెల్లింది అనే వారి కాలం చెల్లుతుంది. దేశంలో కేరళ మాత్రమే రైతులకు న్యాయం చేస్తుంది. వికేంద్రీకరణ అనేది కేరళ వెళ్ళి నేర్చుకోండి'' అని శ్రీనివాసరావు అన్నారు.

https://prajasakti.com/BJP-at-the-center-Implementation-of-Jagan-in-the-state-CPM-state-secretary-Srinivasa-Rao

‘Modi govt. taking away wealth of people’

 ‘Modi govt. taking away wealth of people’

Kochi connect: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in Kochi on Wednesday. THULASI KAKKAT

The Hindu Bureau KOCHI

The Narendra Modi government is taking away the wealth of people and handing it over to his few friends, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has said.

Speaking at the valedictory session of the Kochi leg of the Bharat Jodo Yatra on Wednesday, Mr. Gandhi said millions of Indians, including farmers, traders, fishermen, and petty businessmen, were struggling to survive even as three or four friends of the Prime Minister were enhancing their wealth.

The BJP and the RSS are dividing the country along caste, religious and language lines and spreading hatred among various sections.

“We want a country where people live in peace and prosperity and care for one another,” Mr. Gandhi said.

“India will not accept the unfair practice of ill-treating majority of its people. We will not accept an India where its youth have to beg for a job,” he said.

Some friends of the Prime Minister were the beneficiaries of the hike in prices of fuel and essential commodities.

“Every Indian, while buying fuel for their vehicles, should ask who was benefiting from price hike,” he said.

Earlier, Mr. Gandhi resumed the rally from Kalamassery in Ernakulam to conclude at Aluva.

At the Red Fort, Modi Unveils an Extraordinary Edition of His Personality Cult

 At the Red Fort, Modi Unveils an Extraordinary Edition of His Personality Cult

The demagogue has convinced himself that the nation can be talked up and talked out of the ruler’s mistakes and mis-steps. 

At the Red Fort, Modi Unveils an Extraordinary Edition of His Personality Cult

Prime Minister Narendra Modi gestures as he addresses the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the occasion of the 76th Independence Day, in New Delhi, Monday, Aug 15, 2022. Photo: PTI

Harish Khare

The prime minister who unfurled the National Flag at the historic Red Fort 75 years ago was a man whose political persona had been consecrated by nearly a decade-long incarceration in British jails, by an intimate discipleship of the greatest moral leader of the 20th century, by a joyful immersion in a soul-uplifting struggle and the comradeship of a nationalist movement.

The prime minister who presided over the 75th-year celebration is a man whose political personality has been shaped by the narrow theology minted in Nagpur, by the petty factionalism inherent in the Sangh Parivar and the Jan Sangh-Bharatiya Janata Party – and by an extraordinary self-centredness. 

If anybody was expecting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to give an honest account of our national journey these past 75 years, they would have been rudely jolted within a few minutes when Nehru was excluded and Savarkar was included from the catalogue of those whose vision steered India towards freedom. Personal pettiness and ideological partisanship continue to define the man. As a dedicated soldier of the Sangh Parivar, the prime minister naturally sought to rewrite the national narrative of last 75 years, a nuanced exercise in exclusion and inclusion.

That, of course, is a prime minister’s prerogative on August 15.

Apart from this, the overwhelming impression that Prime Minister Modi managed to convey this year from the Red Fort was that he remains the greatest demagogue this part of the world has seen in a long, long time.

His command over spoken Hindi, his practiced theatrics, and his delivery remain undiminished. 

And, there was no mention, no audit, no assurance about all the problems confronting the nation: the staggering unemployment,  crushing inflation, sore and sullen minorities, unbowed Kashmiris and unsettled Kashmir, Chinese ingress and breaches along the border, distrust and discord between the Union and the States; and, an overweening, ‘maximum’ government.

A demagogue does not allow his audience to connect with reality; the simple trick is to keep the citizens distracted from problems and inflictions. The phenomenon acquires a dangerous edge when the demagogue convinces himself that the nation can be talked up and talked out of the ruler’s mistakes and mis-steps. 

Unsurprisingly, the country was treated to an elaborate dream-sequence. The leitmotif was ‘sankalp’ (resolve).

There is a nice ring to the word, foreign to the Khan Market Gang’s ears but equally incomprehensible to the masses. But the cant has its own seductive charm – as much for the canter as the canted.

The prime minister displayed remarkable physical stamina as he unflaggingly beat his own drum, alternating between the cacophony of megalomania and softer, more statesman-like notes. If the camera had not caught a senior cabinet minister nodding off, the television audience would have concluded that the prime minister had executed one more mesmerising performance with aplomb. The world is already in awe of ‘Naya Bharat.’ And, unprecedented national glory and civilisational pride, we were told, were just round the corner – all that is needed is for the people to fulfil their duties and responsibilities as citizens.

Also read: What Is This ‘New India’ That BJP Speaks of?

As a self-satisfied authoritarian, Prime Minister Modi smugly equated himself and his own government with the nation; the government’s initiatives and innovations were palmed off as instances of national resolve and commitment. There was no hint of the need to build a national consensus behind the strings of ‘sankalps.’ No one need be surprised at this quiet outbreak of political arrogance.

Notice was served that Modi’s India would not allow itself to be judged by outsiders or by non-indigenous values, ideas or yardsticks – that he and his parivar will define for the rest of us. We must henceforth revel in being inward-looking; our glorious civilisation will be our guide and inspiration. Of course, this invocation of national pride and atmanirbharta (self reliance) is nothing but his way of getting the country to come to terms with the mediocrity of the past eight years.  

Towards the end of his speech, of course, the prime minister gave up the struggle to sound like a statesman; his visceral cockiness reasserted itself. From his not-so-soaring heights, he descended rapidly to the familiar themes of an election rally: ‘corruption’ and ‘family-based politics.’ 

Our ever-reliable television presenters instantly pointed out that the prime minister was targeting the Congress party’s first family. The hallowed pulpit of the Red Fort was used to score political points. An even subtler message was to the youth: if there is unemployment it is because ‘dynastic politics” has so deeply seeped into our institutions that its ill-effects have driven ‘merit’ out of society. People were exhorted by Modi to inflict the pain of ‘social boycott’ on the ‘corrupt’ in public life. 

Also read: Modi’s Attempted Image Makeover After COVID Debacle Has Morphed into Worrying Sycophancy

The path of salvation, according to the prime minister, lies in the youth reposing their faith and support in him and his leadership.

As the nation crosses a major milestone, the prime minister probably deserves to be congratulated for a first-rate oratorical performance; his constituency – and his television anchors – have been given enough reasons to believe that their man has not lost his touch. For the next few weeks, social media circuits will be cranked up overtime to paint the prime minister as a saviour hard at work, putting to good use the energy of a new collective consciousness. 

Seventy-five years ago, Nehru and his comrades began the work of creating, for the first time in a millennium, a pan-Indian political community, that too anchored in the magical power of an enfranchised citizenry in a nascent democracy bound by the rule of law and not the divine right of a monarch, foreign or native. Seventy-five years later, a self-obsessed prime minister has glibly sought a reaffirmation of his personality cult.

The next few years will decide if India still remains committed to Nehru’s democratic dreams or has allowed itself to be blindsided by Narendra Modi’s authoritarian solutions. 

భారత రాజ్యాంగ విలువలు - కమ్యూనిస్టుల పాత్ర

 భారత రాజ్యాంగ విలువలు - కమ్యూనిస్టుల పాత్ర

        స్వాతంత్య్రానంతరం మన దేశ పాలనకు దిక్సూచిగా రూపొందించబడిన భారత రాజ్యాంగం నేడు ప్రమాదంలో పడుతోంది. ఆనాడు డా|| బి.ఆర్‌.అంబేద్కర్‌ అధ్యక్షతన ఏర్పడిన రాజ్యాంగ పరిషత్‌ అనేక దేశాల రాజ్యాంగాలను అధ్యయనం చేసి, అనేక చర్చలు, మేధోమధనం జరిపి రాజ్యాంగాన్ని రూపొందించింది.

     ప్రస్తుత బీజేపీ పాలనలో మన రాజ్యాంగానికి తీవ్ర ప్రమాదమేర్పడింది. వాస్తవానికి రాజ్యాంగ రూపకల్పన సమయంలోనే వివిధ పార్టీలు అభిప్రాయాలు చెప్పే సందర్భంలో ఆనాటి జనసంఘ్ ఆర్‌ఎస్‌ఎస్‌లు ''కొత్తగా రాజ్యాంగ రచన అవసరం లేదనీ, మనుధర్మ శాస్త్రాన్నే మన రాజ్యాంగంగా ప్రకటించాలని'' చెప్పిన విషయాన్ని మనం ఇప్పుడు గుర్తుకు తెచ్చుకోవాలి.

     ఆనాటి నుండి కూడా ఆ పార్టీ రాజ్యాంగంలో ఉన్న మౌలిక విలువలను, దాని లౌకిక స్వభావాన్ని తీవ్రంగా వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ వస్తున్నది. బీజేపీ అధికారంలోకి వచ్చిన ఈ ఎనిమిదేండ్ల కాలంలో ముఖ్యంగా రెండోసారి అధికారంలోకి వచ్చిన తరువాత రాజ్యాంగంపై దాడి తీవ్రమైంది.

     రాజ్యాంగానికి విరుద్ధంగా పార్లమెంట్‌లో నిర్ణయాలు జరుగుతున్నాయి. వాటిని సవాల్‌ చేస్తే కోర్టులు విచారించే పరిస్థితి లేదు. రాజ్యాంగ స్వతంత్ర సంస్థలైన రిజర్వ్‌ బ్యాంక్‌, కాగ్‌, ఈడీ, సీబీఐ తదితర సంస్థలన్నీ రాజకీయ వత్తిడిలకు లోనై పాలకులకు జీ హుజూర్‌ అనే పరిస్థితులు దాపురించాయి. మన రాజ్యాంగం బూర్జువా- భూస్వామ్య పాలనకు అనువైన రాజ్యాంగమే. అందులో సందేహంలేదు.

      రాజ్యాంగ లక్ష్యంగా ఉన్న సోషలిస్టు సమాజాన్ని ఆవిష్కరించాలంటే ఈ రాజ్యాంగం స్థానంలో మరింత పురోగామి భావాలతో నూతన రాజ్యాంగాన్ని అభివృద్ది పర్చుకోవల్సి ఉంటుంది. కానీ ఇప్పుడున్న రాజ్యాంగమే ప్రమాదంలో పడుతున్న సందర్భం ఇది.

      ప్రస్తుతం అమలులో ఉన్న కనీస బూర్జువా ప్రజాస్వామ్య విలువలు కూడా నాశనమైతే మన ప్రజలు మరింత దుర్భర పరిస్థితులు ఎదుర్కోవాల్సి వస్తుంది. అందువల్ల ప్రస్తుత రాజ్యాంగాన్ని దాని మౌలిక విలువలను కాపాడుకోవాల్సిన దేశభక్తియుత కర్తవ్యం మనందరిపైన ఉంది.

     రాజ్యాంగ మౌలిక విలువలు మన దేశ ఆధునికతకు పునాదిగా మన రాజ్యాంగం ఉంది.అనేక అభ్యుదయ,పురోగామి లక్ష్యాలు, విధులు, బాధ్యతలు అందులో చెప్ప బడ్డాయి. మొత్తం రాజ్యాంగ ముఖ్యమైన సారాంశంగా నాలుగు అంశాలు మనం చెప్పవచ్చు.

1.లౌకిక ప్రజాసామ్యం

2.ఆర్ధిక సార్వభౌమత్వం 

3.సామాజిక న్యాయం 

4.ఫెడరల్‌ వ్యవస్థ (రాష్ట్రాల హక్కులు).ఈ నాలుగింటిపైనా నేడు బీజేపీ ప్రమాదకర దాడి సాగుతోంది.

1.లౌకిక ప్రజాస్వామ్యం : లౌకికత్వం అంటే అన్ని మతాలను సమానంగా చూడటం అని కాదు. మతాలను, మత సంప్రదాయాలను అనుసరించటానికి వ్యక్తులకు స్వేచ్ఛ యిస్తూనే రాజకీయాలు, ప్రభుత్వ పాలన, విద్యా బోధన ఈ మూడు అంశాలను మతాలకతీతంగా నిర్వహించటం నిజమైన లౌకిక విధానం. ఎందుకంటే మన 140 కోట్ల మంది ప్రజల్లో అనేక మతాలు ఉన్నాయి. ప్రజలందరికీ సంభందించిన ప్రభుత్వ పాలనగానీ, రాజకీయ పార్టీ విధానాలు గానీ, విద్యా విధానం గానీ ఒక మతానికి ప్రాధాన్యత ఇవ్వటం ప్రారంభిస్తే మిగతా ప్రజలు ఈ దేశాన్ని తమదిగా భావించలేరు.ఇప్పటికే ప్రజాస్వామ్యంలో కీలకమైన వాక్సభాపత్రికా స్వాతంత్య్రాలు మృగ్యమవుతున్నాయి.

ఫేస్‌బుక్‌, ట్విటర్‌లో పోస్టులు పెట్టినా రాజద్రోహంగా కేసులు వస్తున్నాయి. ప్రభుత్వాన్ని ''అసమర్థ ప్రభుత్వం'' అని విమర్శించటం కూడా నేరమని నిర్థారించిన మన కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వం ఇంకా రాజ్యాంగ విలువైన ప్రజాస్వామ్యాన్ని పాటిస్తున్నదని ఎవరైనా భావించగలరా? ఆ విధంగా దేశ ఐక్యత, సమైక్యతలకు ప్రమాదం పెరుగుతోందని, ప్రజాస్వామ్యం ఉరికంభానికి ఎక్కించ బడుతోందని మనం గమనించాలి.

2.ఆర్థిక సార్వభౌమత్వం : మన దేశంలోని ప్రజల అవసరాలన్నింటిలో... ఆహారం, బట్టలు, మందులు, ఇతర అనేక పారిశ్రామిక ఉత్పత్తులు, వస్తు, సేవలలో ఏ విదేశస్తులపైనా ఆధార పడకుండా మనమే స్వయం సమృద్ధి సాధించటం ఆర్థిక సార్వభౌమత్వం. అలాగే ప్రతి వ్యక్తి, కుటుంబమూ ఆ విధంగా ఎదగటం సోషలిస్టు విధానం.

ఈ లక్ష్యాలు సాధించటానికి సాతంత్య్రానంతరం కొంత కృషి జరిగి ఫలితాలు సాధించాము.కానీ 1990 నుండి సరళీకరణ విధానాలతో ఈ క్రమానికి గండి పడింది. జాతి సంపదలన్నీ కార్పొరేట్‌ శక్తులకు కట్టబెట్టే విధానం పైచేయి సాధించింది.బీజేపీ పాలనలో ఇది మరింత పరాకాష్టకు చేరింది.

ఇప్పుడు ముఖ్యమైన అన్ని ప్రభుత్వ రంగ సంస్థలు, రైళ్లు, విమానాలు, గనులు, అడవులు, భూమి, స్టీల్‌ఫ్యాక్టరీలు, భీమా సంస్థలతో సహా కార్పొరేట్ల వశం అవుతున్న తీరు మనం చూస్తున్నాం.అదికూడా తమకిష్టమైన పెట్టుబడుదారుల (క్రోనీలు - అదాని, అంబానీలు) కే మొత్తం జ్యేష్ట వాటాను కట్టబెట్టే వికృత రూపం మన ముందున్నది. ఇక ఇప్పటి వరకూ కాస్త స్వతంత్రంగా బతుకీడుస్తున్న వ్యవసాయ రంగాన్ని కూడా కార్పొరేట్లకు కట్టబెట్టేందుకు తీసుకు వచ్చిన వ్యవసాయ చట్టాల గురించి ఇంకా మనం మర్చిపోలేదు కదా.ఆ కత్తి ఇంకా వేలాడుతూనే ఉంది.

3.సామాజిక న్యాయం : బీజేపీ పాలనలో తీవ్ర అన్యాయాలకు గురైన అంశాలలో ''సామాజిక న్యాయం'' ఒకటి. ఈ కాలంలో మహిళలపై దాడులు, అత్యాచారాలు పెరిగాయి. దళితులు, మైనారిటీలపై దాడులు ప్రతిరోజూ జరుగుతూనే ఉన్నాయి.ఆహార అలవాట్లు, వస్త్రధారణ,యుక్త వయసులోని యువతీ యువకుల హక్కులు నేరాలుగా మారిపోయాయి.

భూమి, వేతనాలు, ఆత్మగౌరవం లాంటివి అంటరాని పదాలుగా మారిపోయాయి. ప్రయివేటు గుండాల దాడులు,ఖాఫ్ పంచాయతీలు,గ్రామీణ భూస్వామ్య రాజ్యాలు యథేచ్చగా వర్థిల్లుతున్నాయి. ఎస్సీ,ఎస్టీ చట్టాలు అమలు లేదు.నిధుల కేటాయింపు నామమాత్రమైంది.

4.ఫెడరల్‌ వ్యవస్థ : రాజ్యాంగంలో దేశ వైశాల్యమూ, వైవిధ్యతను దృష్టిలో ఉంచుకుని, పాలన అనేది కేంద్రంతో పాటు రాష్ట్రాల ప్రాధాన్యతతో ఉండాలని చెప్పబడింది. ఇందుకోసం ఏ అంశాలు కేంద్రం అధీనంలో ఉండాలి, ఏ అంశాలు రాష్ట్రం అధీనంలో ఉండాలి, ఏఏ అంశాలు ఉభయులు సంప్రదించుకోవాల్సినవి అనేది స్పష్టంగా పేర్కొన బడింది.కానీ ఈ 75 సంవత్సరాల కాలంలో రాష్ట్రాల హక్కులు, అధికారాలన్నీ క్రమేణా కుదించ బడుతుండగా, నేటి బీజేపీ పాలనలో రాష్ట్రాలను మున్సిపాలిటీల స్థాయికి దిగజార్చారు. ఉదా|| ఇటీవల తెచ్చిన వ్యవసాయ చట్టాలు ఉమ్మడి జాబితాలోనివి.

రాష్ట్రాలను సంప్రదించ కుండా అలాంటి చట్టాలను తీసుకు రాకూడదనేది రాజ్యాంగ స్పూర్తి. కానీ బీజేపీ అదేమీ పట్టించుకోకుండా ఏకపక్షంగా, పార్లమెంటులో కూడా చర్చే లేకుండా చట్టాలు చేసింది. అలాగే ఎలక్ట్రిసిటీ బిల్లుగానీ, జీఎస్‌టీగానీ ఇంకా అనేక విషయాల్లో ఇలాగే ఏకపక్షంగా వ్యవహరిస్తోంది.

రాజ్యాంగంలోని ఈ ముఖ్యమైన నాలుగు విలువలూ అప్పటికపుడు,చర్చలలో ముందుకొచ్చినవో లేక కొందరు మేధావులు ఆలోచించి రూపొందించినవో అనుకుంటే పొరపాటు.భారత దేశ పరిణామ క్రమంలో సుదీర్ఘ కాలంలో ప్రజలను ఆవరించిన భావజాలం అది. దాని రూపకల్పనలో అనేక ఘటనలు,పోరాటాలు,రాజకీయ శక్తులు పాత్ర వహించాయి.ఈ సందర్బంగా రాజ్యాంగంలోని ఈ నాలుగు ముఖ్యమైన విలువల రూపకల్పనలో ఆనాటి కమ్యూనిస్టుల పాత్రను క్లుప్తంగా గుర్తు జేసుకోవటం అవసరం.

సంపూర్ణ స్వాత్రంత్యం: మన దేశానికి సంపూర్ణ స్వాతంత్య్రం కావాలని మొదట డిమాండ్‌ చేసింది కమ్యూనిస్టులే.స్వాతంత్య్ర పోరాటానికి నాయకత్వం వహించిన కాంగ్రెస్‌ పార్టీ చాలా కాలం వరకు భారతీయులకు ముఖ్యంగా పెట్టుబడిదారులకు కొన్ని హక్కులు,అవకాశాలు కల్పించాలని కోరారు తప్ప బ్రిటిష్‌ పాలనను వ్యతిరేకించలేదు. 

1920 లో ఏర్పడిన భారత కమ్యూనిస్టు పార్టీ 21లో జరిగిన గయ కాంగ్రెస్‌లో సంపూర్ణ స్వరాజ్యం కావాలనే తీర్మానం ప్రవేశ పెట్టింది.కానీ కాంగ్రెస్‌ దానిని తిరస్కరించింది. ఆ తరువాత వరుసగా జరిగిన కాంగ్రెస్‌ మహాసభలలో కమ్యూనిస్టులు ఈ అంశంపై పోరాడుతూనే వచ్చారు.చివరకు 1937లో జరిగిన లాహోర్‌ కాంగ్రెస్‌ సభలో కాంగ్రెస్‌ పార్టీ సంపూర్ణ స్వాతంత్య్రాన్ని డిమాండ్‌ చేస్తూ తీర్మానం చేయక తప్పలేదు.

లౌకిక ప్రజాస్వామ్యం : 1919లో జరిగిన జలియన్‌ వాలాబాగ్‌ ఊచకోత తరువాత బ్రిటిష్‌ పాలకులు విభజించి పాలించాలనే కుతంత్రాన్ని పాటిస్తూ దేశంలో పెద్దయెత్తున మత కలహాలను రెచ్చగొట్టారు.ఆ తరువాత దేశం భారత్‌, పాకిస్థాన్‌లుగా విడిపోవటానికి కూడా బ్రిటిష్‌వారి ఈ కుట్రలే కారణం.

సువిశాల భారత దేశంలో అనేక మతాలు కలిసి ఉండాల్సిన నేపథ్యంలో లౌకిక విధానమే ప్రభుత్వ విధానంగా ఉండాలని కమ్యూనిస్టులు ఆనాటి నుండీ పోరాడుతూ వచ్చారు.ఆ విధంగా లౌకిక ప్రజాస్వామ్యం అనేది ఒక ముఖ్యమైన విలువగా రాజ్యాంగంలో చేరింది.

ఆర్థిక సార్వభౌమత్వం: వెనకబడిన భారత ఆర్ధిక వ్యవస్థను స్వయం సమృద్ధిగా అభివృద్ధి పర్చాలంటే పెట్టుబడిదారీ ఆధిపత్యం కాకుండా ప్రభుత్వ రంగం పాత్ర ప్రధానంగా ఉండాలనే వాదనను ఆనాడు కమ్యూనిస్టులు ముందుకు తెచ్చారు. వాస్తవానికి భారత పెట్టుబడిదారులు కూడా వారి ప్రయోజనాల కోసం ఈ విధానాన్నే సమర్థించారు.

స్వాతంత్ర్యం వచ్చిన తొలి రోజుల్లో భారీ పరిశ్రమలు నెలకొల్పటానికి, రైల్వేలు, విద్యుత్తు, స్టీల్‌ వగైరా రంగాలలో పెట్టుబడులు పెట్టేంత ఆర్థిక శక్తి ఆనాటి పెట్టుబడిదారులకు లేకపోయింది.అందువల్ల ప్రభుత్వం రంగాన్ని అభివృద్ధి పర్చాలని వారూ కోరుకున్నారు.ఆ తరువాత కాలంలో తమ చేతుల్లో భారీగా పెట్టుబడి పోగు బడ్డాక ఆ ప్రభుత్వ రంగాన్ని కాజేయటానికి తెగబడ్డారు.

సామాజిక న్యాయం: స్వాతంత్య్ర పోరాటానికి నాయకత్వం వహించింది పెట్టుబడిదారీ వర్గమే అయినా ఆ పోరాటంలో విశాల ప్రజానీకాన్ని సమీకరించే ఎజండాను ముందుకు తెచ్చింది కమ్యూనిస్టులే. దళితులు, గిరిజనులు, మహిళల సమస్యలపై పెద్దయొత్తున పోరాటాలు కమ్యూనిస్టుల నాయకత్వంలో నడిచాయి.

తెలంగాణలో భూమి,వెట్టి చాకిరీ సమస్యలపై సాగిన సాయుధ రైతాంగ పోరాటం,కేరళలో జరిగిన పున్నప్ర వాయిలార్‌ పోరాటం, బెంగాల్‌లో జరిగిన తెభాగా పోరాటం, మహారాష్ట్రలో జరిగిన వర్లీ ఆదివాసీ పోరాటాలు స్వాతంత్ర పోరాటంలో మహోజ్వల ఘట్టాలు. బొంబాయి కేంద్రంగా కార్మికోద్యమం పెద్ద యొత్తున రంగంలోకి వచ్చింది. సామాన్య ప్రజలందరూ సామాజిక సమస్యలపై ఉవ్వెత్తున కదిలిన ఈ పోరాటాలన్నీ కమ్యూనిస్టుల నాయకత్వంలోనే జరిగాయి.

ఫెడరల్‌ వ్యవస్థ : స్వాతంత్య్రం వచ్చేనాటికి ఇప్పటి రాష్ట్రాలు లేవు.ఆ నాటికి బాంబే, మద్రాస్‌, కలకత్తా వగైరా కేంద్రాలుగా ప్రెసిడెన్సీలు ఉండేవి.అనేక భాషలు మాట్లాడే ప్రజలందరూ వాటిల్లో కలిసే ఉండేవారు.మన తెలంగాణ ఉన్న నిజాం సంస్థానంలో తెలంగాణతో పాటు కర్నాటక,మహారాష్ట్ర ప్రాంతాలు కూడా కలిసి ఉన్నాయి.

స్వాతంత్య్ర పోరాటంలోనే భాషాప్రయుక్త రాష్ట్రాల డిమాండ్‌ను కమ్యూనిస్టులు ముందుకు తెచ్చారు. విశాలాంధ్ర,ఐక్య కేరళ, సంయుక్త మహారాష్ట్ర,బీహార్‌ ఉద్యమాలలో కమ్యూనిస్టులు కీలక పాత్ర వహించారు. కాంగ్రెస్‌ పార్టీ చాలాకాలం దాకా ఈ డిమాండ్‌ను అంగీకరించ లేదు.తరువాత అంగీకరించినా తాను అధికారంలోకి వచ్చాక పాటించలేదు.

కమ్యూనిస్టుల పోరాట ఫలితంగానే దేశంలో భాషా ప్రయుక్త రాష్ట్రాలు ఏర్పడ్డాయి.రాష్ట్రాల హక్కులు,అధికారాల గురించి రాజ్యాంగంలో ప్రత్యేకంగా ప్రస్తావన చేయబడింది.మనదేశ వైవిధ్యం రీత్యా అన్ని రాష్ట్రాలకు ఒకే అభివృద్ధి నమూనాలు సాధ్య పడవు.ఆయా రాష్ట్రాల ప్రత్యేకతలను బట్టి ప్రాధాన్యతలను నిర్ణయించుకోవాలి.

అందువల్ల అత్యధిక అంశాలను రాష్ట్రాల పరిధిలోకి చేరుస్తూ రాజ్యాంగం రూపొందింది. కానీ కాలక్రమంలో రాష్ట్రాలను బలహీన పరుస్తూ కేంద్రంలో అధికారాలను కేంద్రీకరింప జేసే ధోరణి బలపడింది.బీజేపీ పాలనలో ఈ ధోరణి విపరీత స్థాయికి చేరింది.

రాజ్యాంగ మౌలిక స్వభావాన్నే తిరగదోడుతున్న బీజేపీ ప్రయత్నాలను అడ్డుకోవటం,లౌకిక ప్రజాస్వామ్యం,ఆర్థిక సార్వభౌమత్వం,సామాజిక న్యాయం, రాష్ట్రాల హక్కులు లాంటి ముఖ్యమైన రాజ్యాంగ విలువలను కాపాడుకోవటం నేటి మన కర్తవ్యం..... 

- తమ్మినేని వీరభద్రం

With the Bihar Political Coup, the BJP No Longer Looks Invincible

 With the Bihar Political Coup, the BJP No Longer Looks Invincible

The change in Bihar is important because it demonstrates that the BJP can be checkmated; its manoeuvres against the Opposition, hailed by the media as masterstrokes and smart politics, regardless of its implications for democracy, can be thwarted.

With the Bihar Political Coup, the BJP No Longer Looks Invincible

Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar being greeted by deputy CM Tejashwi Yadav after taking oath, at Raj Bhavan in Patna, August 10, 2022. Photo: PTI

Zoya Hasan

Zoya Hasan

Listen to this article:

GOVERNMENTPOLITICS

21 HOURS AGO

This article was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

Bihar has signalled a dramatic political shift five days before the 75th anniversary of India’s Independence. The JD(U) walking out of the BJP-led NDA alliance and returning to the Mahagathbandhan is good news for the Opposition. It is nothing short of a political coup which can change the national political landscape.

Just when 2024 was perceived as a done deal, Bihar’s power shift has opened up and expanded the space for Opposition politics. Chief minister Nitish Kumar’s switch yet again has frustrated the attempt to play the Eknath Shinde card in Bihar. In the process, he has also potentially put a hurdle in plans for a re-election of the BJP with an absolute majority in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The national significance of the political shift in Bihar cannot be underestimated as suddenly, the BJP juggernaut does not look invincible.

Political developments in Bihar are specific to the state. But in the past, Bihar has been the crucible for social and political change that resounds through the country. And there is reason to think that this time too, momentous political developments in this state could be the harbinger of change nationally.

Also read: Developments in Bihar Have Made Opposition Politics a Lot More Interesting

The latest political moves are reminiscent of politics in the 1970s with the JP movement setting the stage for a post-Congress polity, culminating in the defeat of the Congress party in the 1977 elections. Bihar is also the cradle of social justice politics. It inaugurated the Mandal era in Indian politics in the 1990s, which changed the structure of Indian politics. Both Lalu Prasad Yadav and Kumar played a crucial role in promoting the agenda of social justice. Kumar went beyond it by intertwining social justice with the language and politics of development.

For national politics, there are three significant implications of Bihar’s power shift. First, the BJP’s expansionist strategy has been stalled. The ruling party was working overtime to achieve an Opposition-free India. The strategy of dethroning Opposition governments by breaking parties or engineering defections through the misuse of central agencies and money power may have received a jolt.

The BJP has got a taste of its own medicine and that too, soon after installing its government in Maharashtra by breaking and devouring the Shiv Sena. The change in Bihar is important because it demonstrates that the BJP can be checkmated. Its manoeuvres against Opposition governments, parties and leaders, hailed by the media as masterstrokes and smart politics, regardless of its implications for democracy, can be thwarted.

The second development is the coming together of all Opposition parties to form a broad-based coalition government. The coalition led by the JD(U) and RJD is the most formidable coalition of political ideologies and social formations Bihar has ever seen. In fact, no state has seen the formation of a state government with the support of the entire Opposition. This can encourage the Opposition to forge coalitions to put up a united fight against the BJP beyond Bihar, whilst underlining the significance of Opposition unity in stopping the BJP’s inexorable advance.

Also read: What a Really Unified Opposition Should Look Like in India

Third, the power shift is important because it unravels the carefully constructed caste coalition of the current regime. The support of JD(U) lent heft to the social engineering strategy which encouraged a mobilisation of lower OBCs and brought their vote to the regime. The disintegration of the alliance has opened the way for breaking the BJP’s hold over OBCs, which is the key to its success in the Hindi belt.

Given the social composition of these two opposing coalitions, it is very likely that the electoral contest will be between the forward and backward castes; there is a strong possibility that the JD(U) can upset the BJP’s social calculations. All in all, the BJP has a big challenge on its hands in the Hindi belt, especially as it has no allies left in the north and northwestern India in what is increasingly a one-party show.

It is too early to predict the political impact of the JD(U)-RJD coalition on the Opposition’s electoral prospects. The eventual outcome will depend on whether this new partnership lasts till the 2024 elections. If it does, its ramifications will be felt outside Bihar.

The NDA bagged all but one seat in Bihar in 2019: 17 for BJP, 16 for JD(U) and six for the LJP. A repeat seems difficult at the moment. This can tip the national balance. This is why Bihar matters. But there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip. ‘Dilli dur ast’.

(Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Distinguished Professor, Council for Social Development, New Delhi.)

Saffron search for Muslim vote: BJP’s outreach to Pasmandas is electorally and ideologically smart, but it won’t be smooth sailing

 Saffron search for Muslim vote: BJP’s outreach to Pasmandas is electorally and ideologically smart, but it won’t be smooth sailing

August 7, 2022, 8:21 PM IST Hilal Ahmed in TOI Edit Page, Edit Page, India, politics, TOI

Hilal Ahmed

The writer is Associate Professor, 

Centre for the Study of Developing Societies

The assertion that Pasmanda Muslims, the most deprived sections of Muslim society, want honour (samman) not affection (sneh) shows that BJP’s enthusiastic attempt to attract Pasmanda Muslims into the Hindutva framework is not a simple and uncomplicated question of political strategy.

In a recent meeting organised by All Indian Memon Conference in Mumbai, a few leading Pasmanda leaders, including former MP Ali Anwar Ansari, made it clear that BJP should have to recognise the specific concerns of Pasmanda Muslims for any meaningful discussion on their backwardness and marginalisation.

TOP COMMENT

BJP, the Nationalist ruling party in the largest democracy in the world, has no Muslim representation, even when nearly 20% of the population are Muslims ... must raise the questio n why, and what are the implications for the future ...??!! ... 

(1). Pasmandas or non-Pasmandas, the Muslims are ideologically hardened across the board ... !! ... Islam that the world knows is Political Islam, with a covert Expansionist agenda ... It is a violent, intolerant Cult, of which highly efficient and effective Brain-washing is an integral part ... !! ...The 7th century edicts and tenets of Quran can not be questioned or argued upon, even though some of them are outright violent, intolerant, regressive and offensive to the other faiths, and also to the women within the followers of Islam ... that is a Sin that deserves beheading, according to the Mullahs ... !! ... The Mullahs are specially skilled in Brain-washing, convincing the followers repeatedly on weekly basis, that Quran is above all arguments ... can not be questioned ... !! ... 

(2). BJP's pro-Hindutva Nationalism of protecting Hindu culture and civilization, goes directly against the fundamental expansionist agenda of Islam in India ... Therefore BJP's mission to attract the poorer and backward section of the Muslims towards its Nationalist ideology is not likely to have much success, without reforms within the Muslim community ... !! ... 

(3) What India needs is not dealing with Islam's regressive, expansionist agenda with a Soft, Constitutionally mandated legal provisions of Secular ideals ... But a China like forced reforms ... !! ... The Islamic dream of Ghazwa-E-Hind, which is discussed on TV in Pakistan on regular basis by their Islamic scholars like Orya Maqbool Jaan, is a credible and immediate threat ... can not be ignored or taken lightly ... !! ... India must do all it can, amend the Constitution if needed, to make sure Islam in India is reformed as per the need of the country, and not left to the Mullahs as business-as-usual ... !!

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/saffron-search-for-muslim-vote-bjps-outreach-to-pasmandas-is-electorally-and-ideologically-smart-but-it-wont-be-smooth-sailing/

Governments and Alliances Change but Nitish Remains: The Magical Bihar Formula

 Governments and Alliances Change but Nitish Remains: The Magical Bihar Formula

Kumar has been the modern-day embodiment of the political idiom, 'Aaya Ram, gaya Ram'. The last three times were about keeping the throne, but this time is about keeping the palace intact.

Governments and Alliances Change but Nitish Remains: The Magical Bihar Formula

JD(U) chief Nitish Kumar being greeted by Bihar governor Phagu Chauhan after being sworn in as chief minister. Photo: PTI.

Subrahmanyan T.D.

Listen to this article:

GOVERNMENTPOLITICS

1 HOUR AGO

Bihar has always been at the centre of Indian politics, contributing some of the most powerful national leaders in the last few decades. As the saying goes, there is one thing that comes naturally to the people of Pataliputra – politics.

The art of political warfare has been perfected by many here and over the last two decades, we have seen the most flexible, sharp and ingenious political moves from the Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] and Nitish Kumar to retain power. This led to the creation of the magic formula of Bihar politics – governments change, alliances change, but Nitish remains.

But this time around, was Kumar parting ways with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a politically calculated move to stay in power? Or was it a last shot at survival?

Bihar today: when and why?

The 2020 Bihar assembly election result was the biggest shock for Kumar. The JD(U), in its prime in 2010, was able to garner a 23% vote share in the state. But come 2020, the party’s vote share plummeted to 15.8%. The JD(U) was the biggest loser seat-wise as well, as it came down from 71 seats to 43, making it only the third largest party in the state, exactly where the BJP was in the previous election.

The year 2020 was also when the BJP played the ‘Paswan card’ well against the JD(U) and ensured the latter’s defeat in over 20 seats. What happened to the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) post-2020 also serves as a political lesson that the BJP’s allies should be wary of.

The political insult of once being the commander and then having to play second fiddle had bothered the JD(U) and Kumar and the political assessment that going forward with the alliance would completely eradicate them in 2025 was quite valid. To be honest, what history tells us is that the BJP eats into their allies – the Shiv Sena is only the latest example, not the last.

Also read: Why Nitish Kumar Dumped BJP and What It Means for Opposition Parties

‘Aaya Ram, gaya Ram’

Kumar has been the modern-day embodiment of the political idiom, ‘Aaya Ram, gaya Ram’. The last three times were about keeping the throne, but this time is about keeping the palace intact.

The BJP’s second phase of its expansion plan – kick-started post the national executive meeting in Hyderabad –is focused on weakening the already weak opposition. The effects of this we have already seen in Maharashtra and Goa, and will soon be seen in Gujarat as well.

For Nitish, it was not only about the threat of the BJP infiltrating his party through R.C.P. Singh, even though that’s the public narrative cited, but it’s more about how the BJP has been infiltrating the JD(U)’s vote bank across the state which, in a way, is not tagged to any specific community. It is more about how Kumar’s space in the households of rural Bihar is being replaced by the image of Narendra Damodardas Modi as a ‘saviour’; an even scarier proposition for Kumar and the JD(U).

The second phase of the BJP’s expansion plan is not just focused on capturing power, but on sustaining it; to be unchallenged in the world’s largest democracy.

Alliance with the BJP – a deal with the devil

Political alliances with the BJP have proven detrimental to many of its past allies, from the Shiv Sena to the LJP, and to the AIADMK – the list is quite long. Everyone talks about the Shiv Sena’s betrayal in 2019, but no one seems to remember how the Sena had shrunk under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA); how the BJP has encroached into Sena strongholds and eaten into their target voter groups.

Similarly in Bihar today, we are seeing the latest iteration of this exercise. It was the LJP first and the JD(U) second, but the important question here is: will another Maharashtra happen in Bihar?

The answer is that it’s unlikely. Although Kumar may have saved his throne for the time being and Tejaswi Yadav may have gotten his “Yuvraj” crown, there is a major political aspect they are missing out on. They just made the BJP the primary opposition in the state. For the party that became the ‘big brother’ in the NDA alliance for the first time in 2020, there can be no better political opportunity.

RJD leader Tejaswi Yadav greets his supporters outside Raj Bhavan after being sworn in as deputy chief minister. Photo: PTI.

For the next three years, the BJP is the sole alternative for the people of Bihar and the much-criticised political leadership of Bihar, which has been responsible for its lack of development, have all come together under one banner. Now ask yourself this question again: did Kumar outwit the BJP or did the BJP just get its best political opportunity to finally capture Pataliputra?

Also read: Developments in Bihar Have Made Opposition Politics a Lot More Interesting

What lies ahead for Kumar?

The road ahead for Kumar will definitely be tricky, as the big brother in the alliance, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) will resort to its form of governance and the ‘golden hat’ of solutions will slowly become an administrative burden.

The logical option for the BJP is to wait and watch, let things take their natural course and, in a way, get public sympathy for being the “betrayed ones”. The BJP’s social media wing is more than capable of generating that feeling and portraying Kumar and the JD(U) as power-hungry opportunists. Who can do it better than the BJP anyway?

The BJP will definitely want to pull off another Shiv Sena-esque coup and they would have already activated a plan involving bargaining with, purchasing of and threatening legislators across the state. If there is any lesson to be learned from Maharashtra, it is that patience and political will is a virtue that you need to admire about the BJP and they will hit you when you least expect it; when they need that political knockdown very badly.

Come 2024, Bihar will be an exciting battle and if history is any indication, it’s Kumar’s last shot at survival.

Subrahmanyan T.D. is national head, Strategy and Research, I-PAC.

CPM RSS and the Constitution

 Kerala Minister Saji Cherian courts controversy with remarks against constitution

ANI

5 July, 2022 06:14 pm IST

Kerala Minister Saji Cherian courts controversy with remarks against constitution

Kerala Minister Saji Cheriyan (Photo/ANI)

Text Size: A- A+

Pathanamthitta (Kerala) [India], July 5 (ANI): Kerala Minister Saji Cheriyan has courted controversy with his remarks that India’s constitution can be used to “loot” people of the country.

Addressing a CPI-M programme at Mallapally in Pathanamthitta district, Cheriyan, who is Fisheries and Cultural Affairs, the minister said the “Indian constitution can exploit people”.

“British prepared it, Indians wrote it and implemented it. It’s been 75 years. India wrote a beautiful constitution that can be used to loot. In that constitution, there are few places that have references to secularism, democracy but it can be exploited,” he said.

“We all say that we have a beautifully written Constitution. But, I will say, the Constitution is written in such a way that it can be used to loot the people of the country,” he said.

Several people including the Leader of Opposition in the state Assembly VD Satheesan hit out at the controversial remarks.

Taking to Twitter, Satheesan wrote, “Saji Cherian, Kerala Minister has made the most insulting statements about #IndianConstitution. Obnoxious words. He should resign or Chief Minister should demand the minister’s resignation. #Constitution”. (ANI)

Kerala assembly adjourned after UDF protest over Minister’s anti-Constitution remarks

As soon as the House proceedings began, the opposition members trooped into the well of the House raising slogans demanding the resignation of Cheriyan.

By: PTI | Thiruvananthapuram |

July 6, 2022 10:01:04 am

Saji Cheriyan (File)

The Kerala Assembly on Wednesday witnessed intense protests by the Congress-led UDF opposition over Minister Saji Cheriyan’s remarks against the Constitution, following which Speaker M B Rajesh declared the House adjourned for the day.

As soon as the House proceedings began, the opposition members trooped into the well of the House raising slogans demanding the resignation of Cheriyan.

They urged the Speaker to suspend the question hour and take up the notice for their adjournment motion to discuss the issue.

However, the speaker decided to adjourn the House for the day as the UDF members did not pay heed to his request to go back to their respective seats.

The opposition members later walked out of the House and staged a protest at the portal of the Assembly hall with placards and raised slogans against the minister and the Left government.

Saji Cheriyan, the minister for Cultural Affairs and Fisheries, on Tuesday landed in trouble for his remarks against the Constitution, triggering a huge political row in the state, but expressed regret soon claiming that he is a public servant upholding the noble constitutional values.

In the visuals aired by the TV channels, the minister could be seen saying in a recent event that the Constitution of the country “condones exploitation” and is written in a way helping to “plunder” the people of the country, drawing sharp reaction from the opposition parties which sought his immediate removal from the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF cabinet.

Kerala minister Saji Cheriyan resigns amid protests over his anti-Constitution remark

Though Cheriyan maintained that the decision to quit was his own, indications are that he was nudged to do so by the party on a day of hectic parley.

By: Express News Service | Thiruvananthapuram |

Updated: July 7, 2022 7:02:10 am

Governor Arif Mohammed Khan accepted the resignation and allocated the portfolios held by Saji Cheriyan to the chief minister, according to a Raj Bhavan tweet. (PTI)

Kerala minister Saji Cheriyan on Wednesday announced his resignation over his controversial remarks against the Constitution at the end of a day of hectic parley amidst mounting criticism from various quarters, not least from the Opposition Congress and the BJP.

Apparently succumbing to pressure from the CPI (M) central leadership, Cheriyan — a senior leader who held cultural affairs, fisheries and youth affairs portfolios in the cabinet — met media persons at the chief minister’s office (CMO) and announced that he had handed over his resignation to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Cheriyan is the first minister to resign from the second Left Democratic Front (LDF) government headed by Vijayan.

Governor Arif Mohammed Khan accepted the resignation and allocated the portfolios held by him to the chief minister, according to a Raj Bhavan tweet.

Speaking at a party function in Pathanamthitta on Monday, Cheriyan had said that the Constitution endorses the exploitation and loot of the common people. “I would say the Constitution has been written in such a manner as to ensure that the maximum number of people are looted. What the British prepared, Indians penned down. Over the last 75 years that it has been implemented, I would say this is a Constitution that ensures the exploitation of the maximum number of people in the country,” he had said.

As the Opposition Congress and the BJP took to the streets demanding Cheriyan’s resignation over the comment, he said that his remarks were distorted and even on Wednesday morning maintained that he would not resign over the issue.

After attending a meeting of the available state secretariat at AKG Centre in Thiruvananthapuram, Cheriyan responded to questions on whether he would be resigning with a query of his own — “Why?” “…What is the problem? I already said what I had to say yesterday.”

However, at the same time, CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury told reporters in New Delhi that the matter was being discussed by the state leadership and “appropriate action” would be taken.

In the morning, the state assembly proceedings were disrupted by the Opposition’s agitations demanding Cheriyan’s resignation leading to the House being adjourned for the day.

After staging a brief sit-in protest at the portal of the hall with placards, the United Democratic Front (UDF) members gathered in front of the statue of B R Ambedkar at the assembly campus and raised slogans accusing Cheriyan of “insulting’ the architect of the Constitution through his harsh remarks. Besides that, there were protests in various parts of Kerala demanding his resignation.

Political Pulse |Fending off other storms, Kerala CPM buffeted by another: minister’s remarks on Constitution

In the evening, Kanam Rajendran, state secretary of CPI, the second-largest party in the LDF government, said that his party would react on the issue only after the CPI(M) decided on its due course of action.

Around 5.30 pm, Cheriyan appeared before the media and announced his resignation and said that it was his own decision to quit. He insisted that it was never his intention to disrespect the Constitution for which he has the “highest regard and respect”.

“I was hurt by such a portrayal of what I had said. I also believe it was aimed at destabilising the ruling Left government,” he said and reiterated that he had no intention to disrespect the Constitution. He also alleged that it was the Congress and the BJP which have failed many times to uphold the majesty of the Constitution.

Welcoming his resignation, leader of Opposition in the state assembly V D Satheesan, as well as other senior Congress leaders, said Cheriyan had not expressed any regret over his remarks nor had the chief minister, his party or the CPI(M) politburo indicated their stand on the speech.

Satheesan further said: “We sought the resignation because it was a dangerous stand he took through that speech. He was toeing the Sangh Parivar line. Why is CPI(M) not taking any stand in this matter? The Congress party feels that he should also resign his MLA post.”

“The police case will continue as he did a criminal offence. He does not have any privilege. The CM should express his opinion about this incident. Why is he not responding to this controversy?” he added.

Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief K Sudhakaran said it was good that Cheriyan exited without much protest.”Our Constitution is special as this is the only one which calls for unity in diversity. If this Constitution is weakened, then our country will be lost,” he added.

Also read |Kerala assembly adjourned after UDF protest over Minister’s anti-Constitution remarks

BJP state chief K Surendran too expressed a similar view and added that the protests would not stop with Cheriyan’s resignation. “It seems like he still stands by what he had said in the speech. Cheriyan has not so far rendered a public apology. Neither the CPI(M) nor the Chief Minister have said Cheriyan’s speech was anti-Constitutional. The disrespect towards the Constitution still continues,” Surendran said.

“He is not absolved from his crime just because he resigned from his minister post. Cheriyan must publicly apologise and resign from the MLA post. If he does not resign from the MLA post, then we will move legally,” he added.

The day also saw a magistrate court at Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta district directing the Keezhvaipur police to register a case against Cheriyan on the basis of a plea moved by an Ernakulam-based lawyer for allegedly insulting the Constitution, according to PTI.

A leader close to CM Vijayan

A two-time MLA and first-time minister, Cheriyan has represented the Chengannur constituency in the state assembly since 2018. The 57-year-old leader is considered as a strongman of the ruling party in Alappuzha district and a confidante of CM Vijayan.

Beginning his political career as a student leader of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Cheriyan also held various party posts during his decade-long political life. Though he contested for the first time in the 2006 assembly election, he lost to Congress’ P C Vishnunath.

He was elected to the House as legislator in the byelection in 2018 from Chengannur constituency by a record margin. During the 2021 assembly election, he won the seat by a margin of over 30,000 votes beating his nearest rival.

The first Pinarayi Vijayan government saw the resignation of at least four ministers over various controversies — E P Jayarajan, A K Saseendran, Thomas Chandy and K T Jaleel. Of them, Saseendran and Jayarajan had been re-inducted into the cabinet after sometime.

Another minister, Mathew T Thomas also quit from the first Vijayan government but as part of his party, JD(S)’ decision for the induction of K Krishnankutty into the then cabinet.

Amid row over CPM leader’s Constitution remark, a bout on the side between RSS, Congress leader Satheesan

CPM's Saji Cheriyan shares Golwalkar's ideology, says Satheesan; RSS warns of legal action.

Written by Shaju Philip | Thiruvananthapuram |

Updated: July 11, 2022 11:47:33 am

Saji Cheriyan (File)

The row over CPI(M) leader Saji Cheriyan’s remarks on the Constitution, which led to his stepping down as minister last week, has now escalated as a war of words between the RSS and the Congress.

While targeting Cheriyan over his controversial remarks on the Constitution, Congress leader Satheesan alleged that the CPI(M) leader had reiterated what Golwalkar stated in his “Bunch of Thoughts” and that Cheriyan shared the RSS leader’s ideology. “Who does not know that the approach of Cheriyan towards the Indian Constitution is the same as that of the RSS,’’ Satheshan, the Leader of the Opposition, had said.

Also Read |Kerala minister Saji Cheriyan resigns amid protests over his anti-Constitution remark

The RSS state committee on Saturday responded by serving a notice to Satheesan and warning of legal action if he failed to retract his statement.

In an outburst against the Constitution at a party function, Cheriyan had stated, among other things, that the Indian Constitution endorses the exploitation and loot of the common people.

SUBSCRIBER ONLY STORIESView All

Covid-19 update: Why precaution dose coverage is low in DelhiPremium

Covid-19 update: Why precaution dose coverage is low in Delhi

Antrix Deal: As it prosecuted Devas, ex-ISRO officials, Govt sought ‘sett...Premium

Antrix Deal: As it prosecuted Devas, ex-ISRO officials, Govt sought ‘sett...

Covid effect? States see big jump in students skipping Class 10, 12 Board...Premium

Covid effect? States see big jump in students skipping Class 10, 12 Board...

Indian envoy: Will like to bring more investment to help Lanka build capa...Premium

Indian envoy: Will like to bring more investment to help Lanka build capa...

Subscribe Now to get 66% OFF

In Kerala, where the minority vote bank is crucial for winning any election, both the CPI(M) and the Congress have always tried to accuse each other of having Sangh Parivar leanings.

More From Political Pulse

2002 RSS resolution haunts BJP, as eyeing its base IkkJutt seeks separate Jammu state

Arunachal ‘beef order' turnabout: All-round pushback and a mum BJP

NCP MLAs who voted for Murmu: A habitual cross-voter, another who chose 'personal ties'

CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Recently, the CPM had, while referring to the protests over K-Rail and the gold smuggling scandal, accused the Congress, BJP and other Sangh Parivar outfits of joining hands against the party-led Left Democratic Front government. Similarly, when the CPI(M)’s party congress held in Kannur in April decided against a pre-poll alliance with the Congress at the national level in the next general elections, the Congress had accused the CPI(M) and the Sangh Parivar of working together in Kerala. Also, when the Kerala government sent a delegation to Gujarat to study the state’s dashboard system, the Congress had taunted that Pinarayi Vijayan was emulating the Modi model of development. It reminded the CPI(M) that a decade ago, the party had sacked their MP A P Abdullakutty on charges of praising Modi.

EXPLAINED

Criticism of RSS over Golwalkar’s views

Speaking to the media on Saturday, Satheesan stuck to his stand and said, “Golwalkar had stated that the Constitution is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various constitutions of Western countries. It has absolutely nothing which can be called our own. This is the same thing that Cheriyan stated about the Indian Constitution, that the British prepared it… I reject their notice with contempt.’’

Also Read |Kerala govt reallocates Cheriyan’s portfolios to 3 ministers

The RSS responded by pointing out that Satheesan had in the past attended several Sangh Parivar events related to Golwalkar.

RSS leader and Kerala Hindu Aikyavedi general secretary R V Babu said in a Facebook post, “In 2006, Satheesan had inaugurated a seminar on religious terrorism on the occasion of the birth centenary of Golwalkar. He lit a lamp in front of an image of Bharat Mata. He did not find any fault with the RSS then. Now, Satheesan who backs Islamic terrorism, hopes that his anti-RSS stand will fetch him votes,’’ he said.

The BJP also hit out, with party state vice-president C Sadanandan Master pointing to a 2013 RSS event that Satheesan reportedly attended as a Congress legislator. “He (Satheesan) is now comparing the anti-national statement of CPI(M) leader Saji Cheriyan with the words of the honourable Guruji (Golwalkar). If Satheesan had felt that Guruji’s words were seditious, why did he then attend the RSS event in 2013 in Thrissur? Satheesan had then given a lengthy speech on the thoughts shared by Bharatheeya Vichar Kendram (which is associated with RSS). He had praised the Kendram and its activities. Now things have changed for Satheesan. This is self-deception,’’ he said.

Also Read |RSS notice: Satheesan says he stands by his remarks on Golwalker’s book

Satheesan on Sunday did not react to the RSS’s statements.

Sangh’s strongest critics have often used Golwalkar’s views on the Constitution and Muslims to take on the RSS on its alleged hardline position. In 2018, during a lecture series organised by the outfit, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had, while referring to a new edition of Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts, said, “As far as Bunch of Thoughts goes, every statement carries a context of time and circumstance…his enduring thoughts are in a popular edition in which we have removed all remarks that have a temporary context and retained those that will endure for ages. You won’t find the (Muslim-is-an-enemy) remark there.”