More than 100 years
ago, in the evening of October 25, 1917, the Winter Palace in Petrograd
(today's St Petersburg) was stormed. This event marked the beginning of the
Great October Revolution, one of the most significant political events of the
twentieth century that shaped the course of history for decades ahead. Lenin had stomach neither for parliamentary
democracy nor for sharing power with any other political organisation. His
unwavering intent to establish socialism in Russia, regardless of the ripeness
of the social and economic conditions, and his firm conviction that only the
Bolsheviks represented the true interests of the workers, would compel him to
adopt strategies and policies that would soon deprive the Revolution of
whatever potential it had originally had for the establishment of a new social
order based on workers' control of the means of production and democracy (which
Lenin, sadly enough, associated with the "dictatorship of the
proletariat"). .. .. read elsewhere
! ~ something on communism in India.
Back
home, the Communist Party of India on Wednesday accused the government of
trying to divert people’s attention from the unfolding economic downturn. A
statement issued at the end of the National Executive meeting, warned of
economic recession and called for protection of democratic rights of the people
of Kashmir and of those affected by the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in
Assam. The CPI announced support to the agitation by the Left parties on
October 10 and asked its units to be ready for a “prolonged” struggle.
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.
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
(yehazadijhootihai), 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. [if you have any objections, this portion is
simply a reproduction of an article in Telegraph India] : Commies blunders
Communist Party of
India claims that it was formed on 26
Dec 1925 at the first Party Conference in Kanpur, then Cawnpore. S. V. Ghate
was the first General Secretary of CPI. But as per the version of CPI (M), the
Communist Party of India was founded in Tashkent, Turkestan Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic on 17 October 1920, soon after the Second Congress of the
Communist International. CPI is among the National parties of India but now
struggling to keep that moniker.
Way
back in my PSU days, there existed a vociferous union who claimed they do not
have any affiliation [but was a Marxist one] and when some members of the
Association sympathized on national calamity that befell on Kashmiri pundits,
the Union strongly objected to that. In
a conundrum, they fought for the rights of contract workers stating that none
should be on contract but should only be employed with all benefits – but there
was a worker in the Union Office who did all sundry work at a measly salary and
was on a contract !!
Media reports state
that China’s largest ride-hailing company, DidiChuxing, has launched a branding
initiative that allows drivers who are Communist Party members to publicise
their membership through its app and on their car’s dashboard.The company,
China’s equivalent of Uber, said in a social media article on Friday that the Red
Flag Steering Wheel programme was launched for drivers to promote the virtues
of party membership.“The profile photos [on the app] of the drivers will have a
red background and a party emblem to identify them as a party member,” the
Weibo article said.“[The programme] aims to distribute the latest directions
and policies of the party to [Didi] drivers through offline and online
activities, and to help them learn and be active members of the party
community,” it said.“We want to raise awareness among drivers of [providing a
better] service and ensuring safer and more comfortable transport for the
public.”
Down under, a minor
political scandal in Australia has shone a bright light on the threat the
Chinese Communist Party and its chauvinistic attitude to race poses to
Chinese-heritage politicians in democracies across the world.In May 2019,
Gladys Liu from the Victorian seat of Chisholm became the first female
Chinese-Australian elected to sit in the Australian Lower House of Parliament.
That was a significant milestone and not before time given there are
approximately 1.2 million citizens with Chinese ancestry in a nation of 25
million. What was then a celebration of progress with respect to ethnic
diversity amongst the ranks of politicians has descended into controversy.Over
the past month, it was revealed that Liu was previously associated with
Australia-based organizations with alleged ties to the United Front Work
Department of the Chinese Communist Party. Known as an effective fund raiser
for her Liberal Party, there are also questions about the links of those donors
to Beijing, which Liu allegedly tapped for money.
Liu has strenuously
denied any association with the Chinese government, saying she would always put
"Australia's interests first," and said she would audit local
organizations which had listed her as a member without her permission.Australia
is at the forefront of calling out and passing legislation against covert
influence and foreign interference activities by Chinese operatives. Regardless
of how this plays out for Liu, the deeply uncomfortable issue for pluralistic
democratic societies of the link between race and allegiance has been pulled
into the spotlight.
Away from global to
local – the CPI, TMC and the NCP have
been called for a personal hearing by the Election Commission which had earlier
issued them notices asking why their 'national party' status should not be
revoked following their performance in the Lok Sabha elections, sources
said.The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the
Communist Party of India (CPI) face the prospect of losing their national party
status following the EC notice.The sources said as per established norms, the
three parties have been given a chance to personally present their case before
the poll panel. Earlier this month, the
three had responded to the notices and defended their national party status.The
CPI is learnt to have said that after Congress, it is the oldest party in the
country which had been the principal opposition party in Lok Sabha.The CPI, the
BSP and the NCP were facing the prospect of losing their national party status
after their dismal performance in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections as well.However,
they got a reprieve when in 2016 the EC amended its rules, whereby national and
state party status of political parties are to be reviewed every 10 years
instead of five.
What purpose is
served by calling themselves the oldest party, when their representation and
support base is almost eroded. Reduced
to single-digit strength in Parliament, Left parties CPI and CPM have been put
in a spot for accepting donations of ₹15
crore and ₹10 crore respectively
from DMK during the Lok Sabha polls earlier this year.
CPM,
CPI and Kongu Nadu Democratic Party (KNDP), among others, contested the Lok
Sabha polls as DMK’s alliance partners in Tamil Nadu. In its declaration of
election expenditure to the Election Commission last week, DMK recorded
donations of ₹40
crore— from its total election expenses of about ₹79 crore — to alliance partners CPI, CPM and KNDP. In its affidavit submitted to the Election
Commission on July 10 and September 13, the CPI(M) had said the expenditure
across the country was around Rs 7.2 crore. The CPI has not submitted its expenditure
yet, reported Times Now.The CPI and the CPI(M) were allotted two seats by DMK
in the Lok Sabha polls in Tamil Nadu. The parties won both the seats.
CPI
State secretary R Mutharasan said it was usual for alliance partners to help
each other during elections. “What we have received is not scam money,” he
added.The Bharatiya Janata Party hit out at the Left parties for concealing the
donations. “If true this is an extremely serious charge where one political
party in its affidavit states of having given another political party a huge amount
of money which the other political party doesn’t disclose in its affidavit,”
NalinKohli told IANS.While it is not unusual for bigger political parties to
assist smaller allies during polls, this exchange caught the public eye for
being a transaction between two opposing ends of the ideological spectrum.
“Capitalist parties like DMK and AIADMK have traditionally been the favourite
whipping boys of the Left parties for their disproportional use of “money
power” in electoral processes. This is also arguably first instance of
political parties, that too, national ones, accepting money from another.
CPM
made divergent statements on the issue. While TN CPM state secretary K
Balakrishnan acknowledged the donation, CPM politburo did not acknowledge it.
CPI sources, however, acknowledged the money it took from DMK was a difficult
but a politically expedient choice as the cashstrapped party is fighting to
remain relevant in electoral politics. CPI general secretary D Raja, however,
sought to explain the exchange as “normal”. “This is not unethical. In Tamil
Nadu, coalitions are made through signed agreements and offering financial
support is normal. The exchange was done transparently through bank transfers
and we will submit our accounts to the Election Commission next week,” he said.
So
parties which had all along claimed to be poor, pro-poor are now openly
admitting that accepting financial support in crores in normal .. .. what was
sold, what was gotten ? ~ all along they spoke of poor / rich divide – of other
parties being Capitalistic [Ambani / Adani] while they are pro-poor. Worser
still, such normal transactions are not even accounted !
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
26th
Sept. 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment