Protesters have condemned the BJP and the police, and have alleged that there is a nexus between the two. They have also accused the two of allegedly attacking and targetting CPI(M) activists, and lodging false cases against them, encroaching on their land, as well as of inciting violence in Talasari and Dahanu tehsils.

The activists were reportedly on the receiving end of harassment for a while but, according to them,  the matter crossed the limit for them when the BJP supporters built an allegedly illegal hut on the land of Sunita Shingda, who is the Chairperson of the Talasari Tehsil Panchayat Samiti and a Central Executive Committee Member of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA).

The delegation from the rally went ahead and met the Tahsildar and the Police Inspector, relaying their concerns and demanding solid action The officials agreed to the demands and have reportedly provided a timeframe for their implementation.

Key leaders in the protest included Dr. Ashok Dhawale, MLA Vinod Nikole, Mariam Dhawale, Kisan Gujar etc.

The CPI(M)’s MLA  Vinod Nikole currently holds the Dahanu assembly seat, which it has won nine out of ten times since 1978. The seat is a Scheduled Tribe reserve seat.

Similarly,  after the Lok Sabha elections, the Maharashtra State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) compiled a detailed report on voter turnout and had raised concerns about an unexplained increase in votes in the Dhule constituency of Maharashtra. According to them,  the number of registered voters in Dhule had increased by over 85,000 within a span of just 24 hours.

Related:

BJP’s Mihir Kotecha facing FIR after allegations of paying people to vote

Maharashtra State Committee of CPI (M) releases absolute figures of polled votes countrywide

Haldwani Violence: Cautioning police against overreach CPI-M delegation demands independent inquiry

The post CPI-M protests against harassment by ‘BJP-police’ nexus, present demands to authorities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) of Assam has also joined the fray, urging judicial action against Sarma for his alleged remarks. In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, the TMC MP Ripun Bora spoke on this issue at a press conference held by TMC.

Addressing a press conference at the state headquarters today, demanded action against Assam CM @himantabiswa for continuously spreading hatred across the state. pic.twitter.com/gCnHjYTfDz

— Ripun Bora (@ripunbora) July 17, 2023

Tensions continue to simmer in Assam as TMC President Ripun Bora urges Chief Justice Chandrachud to take action against Sarma for his alleged hate speech targeting the ‘Miya’ community. Bora spoke of the need for the Assam government to proactively address the incident, even suggesting the possibility of suo motu contempt proceedings.

The Asom Sankhayalaghu Sangram Parishad had also launched an FIR on 17th July, 2023 at the Nagaon Sadar Police Station.

The controversy surrounding Sarma blew up after he commented on the high vegetable prices in Gauhati. He drew comparisons between the pricing strategies of ‘Miya’ vendors and Assamese vendors, suggesting that the Muslims were exploiting people.

Independent Rajya Sabha MP Ajit Bhuyan, who filed a complaint against Sarma at the Dispur police station. The complaint reads as follows: “Himanta Biswa Sarma, CM of Assam asked people from Upper Assam area to come to Guwahati and in that event he would clear Guwahati from ‘Miyas’. Apart from making said statement which is available on social media. Such statements on the face of it are interned to create a division among different communities in the state and clearly prejudicial to national integration.” In the complaint, Bhuyan also stressed the need for an investigation into the matter, citing a recent Supreme Court directive on hate speech cases.

The CPI (M) has also lodged a complaint at the Latasil police station against Sarma, accusing him of making hate speeches that could fuel divisions and tensions among religious communities. AIUDF chief and Lok Sabha MP Badruddin Ajmal was also included in their complaint. The party has called for action to be taken against both politicians under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code that address promoting enmity, malicious acts, and assertions prejudicial to national integration.

While the police have received the complaints, no First Information Report (FIR) has been registered against Chief Minister Sarma as of now.

Related:

Hate Crime & Hate Speech, SC’s scrutiny to continue

Assam CM criticised for divisive language, sparks outrage for remarks on ‘Miya’ Community

2023 Karnataka assembly elections: what has BJP lost and what has it gained?

“246 churches burnt in 2 day, somebody strong is playing games in Manipur”: Father Jacob G Palackappilly

The post Assam CM Faces Backlash over Speech Targeting Bengali-Speaking Muslim Community appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy:timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Delhi State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has written to UttarPradesh, Chief Minister Adityanath, on the alleged “encounter” by the Loni police in Ghaziabad district on November 11, 2021. They have put on record for the CM the events of the reported ‘encounter’ where each of the seven men have “identical uniform injuries” below the knee.

The committee has called this an act of “shocking police atrocity” adding that the police SHO was only suspended after he “publicly objected to his transfer”. The CPI(M) Committee has stated that it is “extremely unjust that without any independent inquiry, false cases have been foisted on the seven men and they have been locked up in jail,” and have called for an independent inquiry under judicial scrutiny.

The Committee has also demanded that “a case of attempt to murder and other relevant sections should be levied on the SHO and he should be arrested and prosecuted”. The letter recalled that even the local MLA Nandkishore Gurjar made “a series of highly objectionable statements with the intent of creating communal disharmony and enmity between communities.” They have called him a “serial offender in this regard” and demanded that cases be filed against him under the relevant provisions of the IPC.

It is important to note that the injured men are all Muslims. The letter highlights that this “substantiates the apprehension of many citizens in the area that they have been targeted because of their religious identity. They are all daily wage workers in the unorganised sector, taking whatever work is available. Many of them have been doing manual labour as loaders, some as street vendors, as construction workers and so on. They also all belong to the Rangrez caste and traditionally their profession has been as dyers. At present they were hired as workers to clean drums with chemicals and also to separate waste material.”

A delegation of CPI(M) members, Brinda Karat, K.M.Tewari, Sehba Farooqui, Asha Sharma, Aman Saini met the families along with local leaders. They were informed by the families “that their feet had been affected by the chemicals used to wash the drums” adding that “they have never been remotely connected with the cattle trade leave alone slaughtering cattle.” It added that “it seems that they have been made a scapegoat in a more sinister plan to create communal tension and disharmony in the area as a default electoral strategy.” Those with the gunshot injuries require proper treatment now and according to the committee the “the facilities in the jail are not adequate.” Their families are also too poor to afford lawyers, and do not have copies of the FIRs or know what charges have been filed against their sons, noted the committee members, adding that the men now in jail were the main earning members, and now their  families are also in “a financially desperate situation.”

The committee has asked that “pending the inquiry which if impartial will no doubt find the police guilty and the victims innocent, the Government should release the victims on bail without delay.”

Uttar Pradesh Police were forced to order a probe after Loni Police Station SHO Rajendra Tyagi, was transferred. He reportedly wrote a note in the General Diary saying he was being targeted due to the “encounter”. The “encounter” survivors, Shoaib, Mustakeen, Salman, Monu, Intezar, Nazim and another youth, who is a minor according to his family, are in judicial custody, and according to news reports had identical injuries, a few inches below the knee. The Ghaziabad police had told the media that these men had been injured after an “encounter” operation, led by Tyagi, and were accused of being involved in “cow slaughter”.

The “encounter” reportedly took place at 6.10 am on November 11 near a scrap godown that was raided in Baheta Hajipur of Loni, reported Indian Express. It was after the identical injuries on the men ‘nabbed’ were reported that questions were asked. Initially, Loni Police Station SHO Rajendra Tyagi, who led the “operation”, was transferred. However he raised a noise about the transfer. The police had made a media statement on November 11, that they “acted on a tip-off regarding cow slaughter, and that the accused fired seven rounds, and they returned fire 13 times, hitting all the accused in the leg.” The police also claimed to have recovered “three animal carcasses, seven country-made pistols, two axes, five knives, and two bundles of plastic wire from the accused.” 

Why was Inspector Tyagi transferred?

Ghaziabad SSP Pawan Kumar told the media the encounter was being probed following the police officer’s “misconduct” adding that the Inspector was suspended for “violating the Official Secrets Act” as “The entry that was made in the official document was unauthorised. Secondly, this secret document was leaked. The policeman also went on leave that had not been sanctioned.” 

Inspector Tyagi, was served transfer orders to the Indirapuram Police Station on November 12. His note as quoted by IE said, “On November 11, my team and I arrested seven persons for cow slaughtering after they were shot in the leg. We recovered carcasses of cows and a vehicle. Since I handled the operations, I believe I have been transferred for this reason. This has dented my morale. I am not in a state to work and I have never been accused of something like this… My character is of the highest standard. Before transferring me, this incident should have been probed.”

Tyagi meanwhile, has been supported by Bharatiya Janata Party’s Loni MLA Nand Kishor Gurjar. He accused police of receiving money from cow smugglers, and transferring the Inspector, “Police have taken lakhs of rupees from the cow smugglers. The SHO wanted to name the main accused but he wasn’t allowed to. He tried to take action against cow slaughter and was punished,” reported IE.

Ironically, social media recalled that Tyagi when he was as SHO of Kharkauda Police Station in Meerut, in 2018, had held himself responsible for a cow-slaughter incident in his jurisdiction, even then he had put this in a note in the General Diary.

Meerut:Kharkhoda SHO Rajendra Tyagi filed complaint against himself & others in General Diary at police station after incidents of cow smuggling took place in his jurisdiction.SHO says,’I had introduced a concept that cop will be responsible if action isn’t taken against a crime’ pic.twitter.com/D0wymMlc95

— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) July 15, 2018

Who is Nandkishore Gurjar?

In February he was accused by farmers of trying to break up the Ghazipur protest, which he denied and claimed that it was not even a farmer-led protest. He had also called the protesting “farmers” asking police to “shoot them” saying “his own people were ready to beat them with shoes”. 

‘जो किसान बैठे हैं ,वो सौ फीसदी आतंकवादी हैं , पुलिस उनको शूट करे , अगर वो नहीं भागते तो हमारे लोग जूते मारकर भगाने को तैयार हैं ‘

मोदी जी और योगी जी के सिपाही बीजेपी विद्यालय नंद किशोर गुर्जर का बयान https://t.co/iGy6SP3z9x pic.twitter.com/NNHT7BQKYq

— Ajit Anjum (@ajitanjum) February 1, 2021

In 2020, he was among the first political leaders to have demanded that meat sellers be forced to down their shop’s shutters during Navratri. He had also claimed his area was under an aircraft fly path and ‘bones’ etc were dangerous as they could lure birds to circle and threaten bird hits and a potential aircraft crash. He has since then been projecting himself as a Hindutva leader in his constituency.

Related:

Noida hate crime survivor approaches SC seeking fair investigation
Krishna Janmabhoomi: Application before DM to stop namaaz at Shahi Idgah
UP ASHAs have had enough of empty election promises

The post An ‘encounter’ in UP: Identical injuries, allegations of ‘cow slaughter’, Muslim daily wagers in jail? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The passing of Comrade Vilas Sonawane today is a huge loss to Dalit- OBC-Pasmanda movement all over the country. He was one of the very few who were extremely articulate and well read on the issue. Apart from that, his own experience of working with Communist Party of India (Marxist) gave him enough understanding of what ails our socio-political movements, as well as his relations with Phulewadi-Ambedkarite organisations.

He was a building bridge in his later years between various progressive and revolutionary ideologies. Listening to him was a treat. There are very few who can explain the issue of class, caste, occupations in such a simple way as he used to. 

I personally felt that Vilas had enormous knowledge, but remained underused even when he was active.I feel, many times our public activities prevent us from engaging in intellectual work like writing. I have this complain with another important person with whom I worked, Prof D Prempati. He was a man of extraordinary knowledge, yet because of constant engagement in mass contact programmes, he was left with no time to write about the work which would have become an important resource for the coming generations. This happens with most people who are active at the ‘grassroots’, as in their bid to engage more with people, they are unable to give time to writing. 

Vilas emerged from a student movement as he was the founding secretary of Student Federation of India (SFI), Maharashtra. He was the first Communist Student Secretary of Siddharth College Mumbai Students Union from 1973-75. He was expelled from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 1978, and got associated with Comrade Sharad Patil who established Satyashodhak Communist Party in the same year. Actually, Vilas always spoke about the caste bias in the party, and that compelled him to work for the rights of the OBCs in Maharashtra in particular, where political leaderships of different parties were not giving space to them. Vilas never compromised his Marxism. Despite having big differences with the leaders of his party and others in the Left movement, he never ever dissociated with Marxism.

It was a powerful idea of bringing together Phule-Ambedkar-Marx-Buddha by Comrade Sharad Patil that actually brought him into debating with him the importance of the caste ignored by the Marxists in India. Sharad Patel was working on the issue for long and understood it well that if India needs a strong fight against the Brahmanical system, it needs a combination of powerful ideologies which provide alternative and it cannot be an ideology imported from anywhere. You have powerful movements in India and that is why he was consistent on saying it Phule-Ambedkar-Marx-Buddha and why they were needed. The name Satyashodhak Communist party therefore represented the great influence of Jyoti Ba Phule on Sharad Patil. In various conversations that I had with Vilas whenever we got the opportunity to meet, he would give examples and examples quoting both Phule and Ambedkar about the shudra jaatis or shramik castes. 

Vilas’s knowledge came with his enormous mass contact and participant in various movements in Maharashtra and outside. That apart, he continued to debate with ideologues like Sharad Patil and it resulted in knowledge which may or may not be documented. He was not merely an ideologue or philosopher, but initiator and participants in these pathbreaking movement. 

He became more active in the post Mandal era, as the country saw a resurgence of the Dalit-OBC unity initiatives everywhere. Vilas knew it well that Muslims too have caste structure and encouraged Muslim OBCs to speak up which resulted in establishment of the Muslim Marathi Sahitya Parishad in 1990. Two years later, he began the Muslim OBC movement. By the late nineties, he realised that it was important to start a dialogue process with all secular-socialist-Bahujan forces, and that process began in 1999. He would say that we need to bring together all secular progressive forces. Even when many had aversion with Gandhians, he had no such issue and felt that there are good people everywhere and they need to have a dialogue. 

When the UPA I, in 2004, started rigorous land acquisition process and a new ‘concept’ of Special Economic Zone came into being threatening lives and livelihoods of thousands of people particularly Dalit Adivasis as well as peasants Vilas joined hand with Justice P B Sawant and Justice B G Kolse Patil to fight against the unjust law and acquisition. They formed Mahamumbai Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti to fight against the whole process of the land acquisition. His organisation Yuva Bharat, formed in 2001, played a very vital role in mobilisation the masses against the land acquisition process. The Samiti not only started working mobilisation of people against the whole process but also decided to challenge it through the process of law. They remained amply clear that no land for any purpose. This movement against SEZs in the region brought him in ideological conflict with the ‘mainstream Left’ and so-called social movements campaigning against big dams. They also blamed these forces for using their media connection to hijack the movement and give wrong information. Ultimately, Reliance had to withdraw from Raigarh SEZ in 2009. It was a big battle which they claim that Maharashtra farmers rejected the ‘reformist’ and ‘NGO model’ which wanted to focus on ‘rehabilitation’ and not really focus on broader issues of farmers and their own agency to lead their struggle. 

Vilas was also hailed for the successful fight against the Dow Chemicals Company near Pune with the help of Warakaris in the year 2008. 

Actually, Vilas had realised it was better to move away from ‘ideological rigidities’ and being ‘camp followers’ as he wanted to make effective political intervention with greater impact on masses. Right from formation of Yuva Bharat and his efforts to reach out to other ideological spaces of Gandhian, Ambedkarites, Marxists, Phuleites, Socialists, Lohiasts, JPites was a pragmatic way to find a common ground against communal capitalist forces. He was certain that all these talks of unity will not be possible without discussing the issue of representation at the decision-making bodies level. He was extremely close to Comrade Sharad Patil whose Phule Ambedkar Marx Buddha combination alternative was liked by many but as Vilas said in a wide-ranging conversation with me that for twenty-five years Sharad Patil Saheb did not agree with him but ultimately agreed that he was wrong and question of representation was important and critical. 

Listening to him was a treat but he was definitely not made for the ‘online’ age as he would speak with great ease and would not like to be ‘disturbed’. Even when he was neither an academic or a teacher yet he had enormous knowledge which came from his vast studies and his relationship with communities and people. For youngsters like us, sitting with him was listening to a live encyclopedia, but his anecdotes and stories can definitely bring Bahujan communities together which espoused for. His analysis of relations of peasants with Dalit communities is extraordinary and should be taught to every student of social justice.  

Even about the Mahad satyagraha, he has a very interesting analysis which has not been revealed. Mahad was the movement that is termed as success story of Baba Saheb Ambedkar but why Mahad succeeded and Vilas explained this beautifully in the conversation with me, “There were two Satyagrah in Mahad. One for water rights and other was burning of Manusmriti. It is also a fact that Manusmiriti was burnt by Sahshrabhuddhe, a Chitpawan brahmin friend of Baba Saheb. He gave a 40 minutes speech. Baba Saheb was standing nearby. People normally term the victory of Baba Saheb as that of Mahars but that is not true. In Ratnagiri and Raigarh there were only 4% Mahars that point of time, who did not have voting rights. The 1937 elections were not ideal franchise as voting rights were given to only those who were property holders, and Mahars did not have the property or even houses. Most of their houses were there on Khotland i.e., that of Zamindars. Not a single Mahar had voting rights. But in the elections that year, Independent Labour Party, from Ratnagiri which includes todays Sindhudurg and Ratnagiri, ILP won 16 seats out of 18. In Raigarh district they won 14 out of 16 and three MLCs were appointed by the governor. How could it be possible? Not without the support of other castes. It means that water rights campaign of Baba Saheb Ambedkar attracted other farming communities too to his fold.”   

He says that while Baba Saheb formed Scheduled Caste Federation for protecting the interests of the untouchables, it is the Independent Labour Party which gave him wider representation and his acceptance as leaders of all castes and not merely that of untouchables or depressed classes.

Vilas was categorical that both Baba Saheb and Jyoti Ba Phule had brahmins friend but they were enlightened and committed to the causes. He however felt that some brahmin dining with Dalits or shudras or sitting with them does not end caste system. 

On the issue of Dalit OBC conflict, he said normally the peasantry and the artisan communities have close working relation and therefore farming is not merely a business of one caste but involvement of many others in different forms. 

He said that both he and Sharad Patil had left CPM, but that time we were ideologically not that strong and we simply felt that if we put Phule and Ambedkar with Marx, all the issues will get resolved. Though I had no issue with linking all of them, but I put a question to Sharad Patil about the leadership issue to which he did not respond in 1977. My question was simple. There was about 1,000 members of the party that time, of which 600 odd members belonged to Adivasi communities. But when the question of state executive or district executive came it was a different scenario. There were not even 75 brahmins in the entire state who were the members of the party but ironically, in the state’s highest body there were 24 brahmins out of 27 in the state committee and rest got adjusted in various district committees. How can you do that those who build the party get no representation at the top level of leadership while Brahmins were there just to ‘lead’ the party. This will not work. Vilas said that Sharad Patil accepted his position after 25 years at the fag end of his life but it did not matter much nothing could have been done at point of time. 

In the post 1990s, Vilas got active in bringing different groups together and formation of Muslim OBC organisation in Maharashtra. He said on the OBC question more than 200 Tallukas of Maharastra saw both Muslim and Hindu OBCs fighting for their rights together. It happened first time after Phule, said someone in a journal which somehow reached Sharad Pawar who called Vilas and wanted to know from him about this. After this, Sharad Pawar picked up OBCs from different places in his party. Our question was that leave your religion aside and fight for your rights. 

He also felt that Bahujan masses are still leaderless and the only way to bring Dalit OBC together is to raise their socio- economic issues. Unfortunately, the Marxists forgot to speak about social issues while those claiming Buddhism speak about social and cultural ideas of Buddha but not his economic model. Buddha’s economic model is extremely important and we will have to say it that he was able to suggest this nearly 2,500 years before Karl Marx. 

Vilas said that those who use the system often misquote and misuse the facts and hide those things detrimental to their interest. He gave example of Shivaji and says most of us only speak about Shivaji in relations with Mughals and then convert it into a Hindu Muslim issue but none speak about Land Reforms initiated by Shivaji. 90% of the battle Shivaji fought against his own relatives and were Vatandars who turned against him because of the land reform initiatives. 

When we were discussing the issue of bringing together of Dalits and OBCs as well as their contradiction, Vilas was clear that frankly originally, they were all the same jaatis as every jaati was having its own traditional work and expertise while being interdependent on each other’s. So, nobody could go ahead if any one of them withdrew. He was off the opinion that Bahujan masses will have to embrace Phule-Ambedkar-Buddha and only then there will be change. He felt that had Baba Saheb taken a conflicting stand on the round table conference against Gandhi, we would have had a social revolution that time. So, for him, an Ambedkar of Independent Labour Party is acceptable so that he becomes the leader of all.  To those who says that Baba Saheb Ambedkar did not write much about land or worked for the peasantry, Vilas Sonawane gave a powerful example from his own experience in the fight against Reliance SEZs in Raigarh. 

He said, “In the Konkan region the farmers went on a strike till seven years from 1929 to 1936. It was about the tax to be given to Zamindars and they were demanding it should be not left to their whims and fancies. So finally, the farmers won and it was 25% to Zamindars and 75% to Kisan. The three castes which benefitted were not untouchables. Most of them were savarna castes. Baba Saheb won the battle for them. The anti Zamindari movement made Baba Saheb extremely popular among all. Even today, Konkan’s caste Hindu farmers have Baba Saheb’s photographs in their homes for the battle that he fought for them. 

It is also important to notice that Baba Saheb Ambedkar presented an anti Khoti (Zamindari) bill in the Bombay Legislative Council in 1936 and it was the basis of the same bill which became the basis for passage of Zamindari Abolition Act in 1948 by Indian Parliament. So, all the Kurmis, Yadavs, Jats, Gujjars and other peasantry communities who have got farming land actually owe it to Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar. 

I had several opportunities to share stage with Vilas Sonawane and discuss these issues. It was always an enlightening to speaking with him. The amount of knowledge that he had needed someone to record and decipher. Both of us were honoured by Ambedkarite Buddhist Organisation in Ayodhya on Ambedkar Jayanti several years back. He participated in many events organised by me in Delhi. He would share his ideas with the youngsters and was always hopeful of a better future. It was not an easy task to sit with him for a formal conversation. When I along with my friend Vivek Sakpal from Mumbai, went to Pune and invited him to come to Mumbai for a conversation, he came. It is difficult to ask a person of his calibre who we looked up to clarification of many things to get fixated to a particular format. I would have loved to record a much bigger conversation with him but unfortunately that day it was quite delayed and he had to return to Pune. We had already recorded over three hours plus. Some of my friends suggested that you edit the interview and make it to small version but principally, I remained against editing and second there was nothing which could be edited. We were of the opinion that whatever is there must be uploaded in one go. I am sure if people have patience and time the three hours interview will give them numerous ideas and information related to Dr Ambedkar’s work for in relations to the farming communities and why should they join hand together and protect their livelihood and resources. 

One sincerely hopes, that his family members and friends will bring together and publish his writings and thoughts in the greater interest of common people victims of hierarchical system as well as imported imperialist capitalist order. A big salute to Comrade Vilas Sonawane, a Satyashodhak Marxist for remarkable contribution to strengthen the Bahujan debate as well as social movements by articulating the issue of land, resources, farmers and identity in such an extraordinarily simple way.

*Views expressed are the author’s own.

Other pieces by Vidya Bhushan Rawat:

India needs to reject the ‘politics of ‘brand’ 

Oratory comes with conviction 

Stop mindless concretisation ‘projects’ in Uttarakhand

The post Vilas Sonawane: Tribute to a ‘Satyashodhak’ Marxist appeared first on SabrangIndia.

‘To be or Not to Be’, is the key question that hangs over the heads of CPI (M) Polit Bureau like a Damocles’ sword when it comes to the question of having any kind of understanding with Congress in order to oust the present dispensation under the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supported by its multi headed behemoth, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). Those who have piloted the ‘Not to Be’ stand have argued that the Congress is no less a class enemy than the BJP whereas the rest have made an attempt to distinguish the dangers posed by the Congress vis a vis and BJP.

It is a matter of historical fact that, it was under Congress rule that the Left in India gained some traction among the public and youth as an alternative political option and even galvanized considerable sections of the Indian people which, among other things, helped them to form governments in Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala and also win more than a handful of seats in various state assemblies. For example in Rajasthan, it was under the alliance with the Congress, that the CPI (M) managed to obtain its highest ever assembly presence in 2008. The same is applicable in case of undivided Andhra Pradesh as well.

Significantly, it is also important not to forget that it was the struggles epitomized by the wider Left in India, that shaped real agenda when it came to key questions, be it the slogan for complete independence during the freedom movement, bringing the agenda of land reforms to mainstream policy framework in early 1950s, rallying forces against Indira Gandhi’s authoritarianism in late 1970s, or fighting for national unity and integrity in late 1980s. Even for that matter, championing the cause of the downtrodden burdened by neoliberal economic policies.  The question now before India is, whether the CPI (M), a vocal contingent of the wider Left in India will play the same role in awakening the nation against impending danger to its secular democratic fabric posed by the BJP-RSS.

The Draft Political Resolution released for discussion for the upcoming Congress, has stated that the four years of Modi government, has built the architecture of authoritarianism by curbing parliamentary democracy, subverting constitutional institutions and democratic rights. It has also recorded the attempts by the RSS and its affiliates attempts to advance their communal agenda, which is a step prior to complete authoritarianism.

The architecture of authoritarianism that the BJP under Modi ‘s stewardship exemplifies, is in clear contrast to the authoritarian tendencies adopted by the then Indira Gandhi which culminated in clamping of the Emergency. Unlike now under the hegemonic and majoritarian RSS,  the authoritarian tendencies then took shape under a small coterie of Indira Gandhi’s inner circle. It did not have awide-rangingorganisational architecture with a clear-cut chain of command. It functioned, malevolently, in fits and starts. The architecture of authoritarianism under the present dispensation, with its troll armies that use all means –foul and malignant—to shape public perception and also implement vigorously the mandates that comes either from 7 Race Course Road or from Nagpurare equipped with a far better structured (or semi-structured) organizational mechanism than the one before.

To substantiate my argument: according to documented sources, more than three crore people visits fake news pages created and run through the social media outfits of the RSS – BJP and they are also running Facebook pages with a reach of hundreds of thousands. The statement by the RSS chief on the preparedness of its cadres (to take an army like position) must be seen and understood in this light. Hence, this authoritarianism, even if we agree with the CPI (M) document, which states, is ‘under construction’has the dangerous ‘flesh and blood’ potential to fuel direct action through its multi layered cadres of visceral Kar Sevaks. A manifestation of this we witness now in the tiny state of Tripura where the demolition squads were out on the streets the day after counting of votes came to a close.

Another important difference between two shades of authoritarianism is the vengeance wedded to an ideology instead of simply personal loyalty. The authoritarianism, which gives birth to vengeance wedded to an ideology akin to that of RSS, is far more dangerous than the one wedded to personal loyalty. The authoritarianism of the 1975-76 variety imposed a temporary emergency and is nothing when compared to its 21^st century variant under the present Modi regime that has created the situation of a permanent, undeclared emergency.

The authoritarianism of the earlier phase was rightly termed as a danger to constitutional democracy. Such an understanding paved the way for the widest possible rainbow alliance within which the Left played a crucial role against Indira’s declared emergency. Will the upcoming 22^nd Congress of CPI (M) have a similar appreciation of the ground-situation remains to be seen?Whatever, the outcome, discussions must reflection a historicity and not become self-defeating as they tended to be, before the release of Draft Political Resolution. A look at the historical parallels could provide an insight to overcome the confusion over the strategic goals set forth.

TheNinth Party Congress has already pointed out, “ The Party of ruling classes itself was rapidly and systematically moving towards authoritarianism and a one person rule”. Against this threat to democracy, the Ninth Party Congress, in 1972, called for a united resistance,through the unity of Left and Democratic forces. The Party also critically examined its own approach towards the growing resistance to the authoritarian rule. In its 10^th Congress resolution, the Party recognized its failure to realise the possibilities of the growing resistance to the authoritarian rule of the Congress from the other parties from within the ruling classes themselves. Until then we had this simplistic understanding, which held that in the wake of any developing economic crisis, a resistance to authoritarianism would come only through and from a unity of Left and democratic forces.
 
During the elections of 1977, that were announced after the lifting of the emergency, the CPI(M) did not hesitate to join hands with the Janata Party to put an end to the authoritarian rule of the Congress, headed by Indira Gandhi. The move was aimed towards a dismantling of the authoritarian framework and a restoration of democracy. There was no illusion on the part of the then leadership that the Janata Party represented any class interest that was different from that of the bourgeoisie and landlords as represented by the Congress, today.In it’s Review Report, the party document, stated: “The PB and the CC instead of noting the changing moods of these bourgeois opposition parties continued to emphasise the fundamental class character of these parties and their right reactionary and counter-revolutionary nature as was described in our Party Programme and further explained during the 1969-72 period when these parties were holding the banner of the so-called “grand alliance”.
 
However, despite this historical understanding and the stand that the party then took, when it comes to a response to the current situation, a section of the party has piloted a majority resolution arguing that, since, it is the Congress that has initiated economic reforms, there is no question of allying with it for defeatingthe BJP and its unique brand of authoritarianism. It would not be inappropriate to draw the attention of so called purists to the opening of remarks of B.T. Ranadive, who, whilepiloting the draft political resolution at its 13^th Congress, Trivandrum, said that left parties would have to support the secular bourgeois opposition parties despite their shortcomings and vacillations so that a combination of secular and left parties was able to defeat the Congress (I).

Until the 13^th Congress, the CPI (M) has had theluxury to delineate BJP as only a ‘secondary threat; to Indian democracy and hence all its might was focused against Congress (I). Until 1988, the Party vehemently opposed the Congress (I) and even sailed with all vacillating secular bourgeois opposition parties despite their shortcomings, so that their main enemy could be unseated from power. Today, the draft resolution released on the eve of the party’s 22^nd Congress, such a pragmaticapproach is lacking.

The political tactical line released for discussion is filled with more confusion than clarity. When the DPR says that no alliances will be entertained with Congress but at some times also suggests that it will workout a strategy to ensure that the anti BJP vote pool will be maximized, there is one level of confusion. At another place in the DPR, there is a reference to flexible electoral tactics. This playing around with vocabulary is not going to help the Party in devising a clear-cut strategy to fight its enemy.

Dithering in its fight to oust BJP will also go against the spirit of the Party programme, which clearly states, “The threat to the secular foundations has become menacing with the rise of the communal and fascistic RSS-led combine and its assuming power at the Centre.
Systematic efforts are on to communalise the institutions of the State, the administration, the educational system and the media. The growth of majority communalism will strengthen the forces of minority communalism and endanger national unity. The support of sections of the big bourgeoisie for the BJP and its communal platform is fraught with serious consequences for democracy and secularism in the country.” While the DPR pledges to wage an compromising fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society, the strategy if not clear-cut but confused. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels.

There is more. If it wants to rally all the Left Secular and Democratic forces behind it, CPI (M) will need to survive the ongoing onslaught on its foundations as well as the foundations of Indian constitutional democracy. This is the time to rekindle the examples and experiences of its struggle against the authoritarian framework of Indira Gandhi and learn lessons from that struggle. If it wants to learn lessons from its earlier struggles against authoritarianism, it should opt for a tactical line similar to that of 1977. With clarity and without confusion
 
(The author is an advocate with the high court of Andhra Pradesh and a close sympathizer of the CPI-M)
 

The post Which Way Will CPI (M) Choose to Go, 1977 or 1989? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The separation between State and religion is a critical aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences

Our basic problem today is the fundamentally flawed approach of the ruling sections which have tended to define secularism in practice as equality towards all religions whereas the Constitution that is founded on secular principles speaks of the need to separate religion from the State. This separation is a critical and defining aspect of a modern nation state like India that is rich with a multitude of religious, cultural and linguistic differences. In such a case, religion remains the choice of an individual and this right the State shall and is bound to protect.

But the moment the State intervenes to ensure equality between religions, and there is an overwhelming majority of one faith, that intervention inevitably and unfailingly favours the majority. This is exactly what we are witnessing in India today. Due to this flawed approach by the ruling political sections, whose practice post–Independence did not conform to what secularism must mean in terms of the modern Indian state, we are witnessing crude digressions today.

The argument that secularism is a foreign or a western notion being imposed on an inherently different Indian ethos is an apology for not being secular. The point is that the ethos of India and of any other country is not essentially different. Every culture, all peoples have their specificities but these in no way interfere or impinge on fundamental human impulses, needs and requirements. And here we are speaking of the fundamental principles of co–existence in a multi–dimensional reality.

It is imperative that the Indian state in a multi–religious, plural society like ours remains distanced from religion. This does not mean that the State is anti–religion; it only means that it will neither have nor assume a religious tinge or character. It will, in this very neutrality and also as a fundamental duty, protect the right of each and every citizen or individual living in its territory to his or her individual faith. That is, religion will and must remain in the private sphere.

This is especially critical in our situation where the evolution of the nation–state has been different from the European nation–state. Here, we have always had unity in a vast diversity. This diversity is not just religious, but linguistic and also includes various nationalities. To build a State writ within it, this concept of unity in a diverse situation such as this, requires that the commitment to secularism be all the more firm.

The argument, made in the converse by the right wing, that because of the diversity of India, the state needs to engage with different religions, then becomes even more slippery. Secularism in India will have to be richer and firmer in its separation because of this diverse reality. Besides, in India secularism and democracy are inseparable precisely because of this diversity. The protection of the right of the minority is the hallmark of the democracy. Secularism therefore is essential for a democracy.

The evolution of the modern state begins with Independence because the British colonial state was not modern. Secular democracy is the foundation of the modern Indian state. The foundation of the Constitution as a secular, democratic republic could be established in India even in the most trying times caused by Partition–related Holocaust and the assassination of Gandhi only because and only when the political class confronted communalism of both the majority and minority, frontally.

Hence, post–Partition, the RSS was banned in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination. The minority dropped the demand for communal electorates. Of great significance is the correspondence between Nehru and GB Pant on the Babri Masjid issue where Prime Minister Nehru decisively wrote that it was no business of the state to meddle in matters of faith and belief. The most significant such step was the Cabinet of India writing to the President, Rajendra Prasad when he wished to visit the Somnath temple, that he would have to undertake the trip in his personal capacity, not as President of the country.

These were the ideals on which the Indian state was founded. Even Sardar Patel, whom the fanatic right wing is so apt at misquoting, was clear that state should have nothing to do with affairs of religion. It was he who was, as much as Nehru, against state funds being used to re-build the Somnath temple. Therefore, the government did not rebuild the temple.

These are several instances where the state took a firm position on secularism. The moment there is dithering for reasons of political expediency, short cuts are taken and this faltering applies as much to the communal tendencies of the minority as the majority. Then the state in its compromised avatar appeases sections — the classic manifestation is the state’s behaviour vis–à–vis the shilanyas at Ayodhya and, post-Shah Bano judgement, towards the Muslim minority. The moment this short-circuiting became the accepted practice, secularism took a blow.

The Left has been the most consistent defendant of genuine secularism, against the dilution of secularism and erosion of secular values. It has always stated that separation between religion and state, not equality of religions, is the essence of secularism.

The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.
 

The Left has also had the moral courage to admit and learn from its mistakes. There was a time when we went with the Muslim League in Kerala in the seventies. But in the early eighties, we reviewed this alliance on the basis of our experience. We concluded that the alliance was giving legitimacy to a religion–based political organisation and that this does not strengthen secularism. Moreover through the alliance, our respectability was used to further their sectarian agenda. So in the early eighties, on the basis of our experience in allying with them in the past, we not only ended the alliance but decided never to enter into it again. Because, in effect, we realised that in the process an unfortunate legitimacy was being accorded to a religion–based political formation and also that we were only helping them consolidate their base.

It was after the second and brutish dismissal of the EMS Namboodripad government in 1969 in Kerala, that a broad anti–Congress front consisting of all those willing to take on the Congress emerged, and in this broad alliance we sat with the League.

The government came to into existence in 1977, but ended soon thereafter.

The point is that the Left is the only force which, apart from taking a consistent theoretical and practical position on secularism, also had the moral strength to review an earlier association with a communal organisation after which we decided not to enter into such an alliance in the future.

Now, coming to the wings of the Indian state vis–à–vis secularism. The erosion of a genuine commitment to secularism by the dominant Indian political class and the executive was translated into similar departures from secular values by other wings of the state. Hence, even before the more bloody eighties, when pogroms of the kind we saw in Bhagalpur, Meerut–Malliana took place, in the 70s itself we saw the communalisation of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in UP.

This brings me back to my original point. The moment you talk of equality for all religions, every arm of the state, instead of separating the state and its functioning from religions per se, begins a process of accommodation. And in this process of accommodation, majoritarianism inevitably creeps in.

So, for instance, if you say that gurudwaras, or churches, or mosques, or temples are all right in a police station, what will be the result? Obviously there will be more temples, as Hindus are far more numerous in the political structures, institutions or government offices. This is how the different wings of the state have slowly got corrupted over the years: by the Indian state dithering on the principle of real secularism which is a distance from religion. It is only by taking a firm position and reasserting today that religion has nothing to do with the state that the Indian political class can hope to redeem a lost value.

Religion will always remain one instrument that the ruling classes will use to exploit the masses, divide people and do whatever else is necessary to consolidate their own rule. All the more reason that it, religion, be divorced from the state.

However, at the individual level, the equal right of all Indians to believe and to practice, propagate and enjoy that belief will be protected by the state. Moreover, secularism and the freedom of faith enjoined within it also mean that none could interfere in the exercise of that choice. So, in my personal life, I can be an atheist, Christian, Muslim or a Hindu. The state’s role is only to protect that individual human right.

Faced with the onslaught from a narrow and fanatic brand of religion, which has a distinct fascistic edge, the people of India, I am convinced, will eventually revolt against the cynical appropriation of that faith. The right wing fascist takeover of religion — of which browbeating the minority is an integral part, Gujarat being the ‘best’ example of this — is what we see at it’s height today.

But this phase cannot last for long because, apart from attacking minorities, this fascistic tendency has other consequences, too. A severe erosion of democracy and economic oppression of all people, regardless of their religious identity, will necessarily accompany the attack on Muslim minorities. Millions of people have been oppressed by the brutal economic policies of this regime; civil liberties and the right to question decisions of the state are being seriously undermined.

These issues are brewing at the grassroots level and brutal communal attacks are being used to divert public attention from them. Soon, these legitimate resentments will come to the surface and issues of oppression, economic and political, of all Indians — not just the unfortunate minorities — be highlighted and the autocratic designs of the fascist elements misusing religion will truly get exposed.

Let’s not forget that despite the harsh face of political Hinduism which we see today, the nineteenth century and even earlier history is replete with examples of strong Hindu reform movements that raised the very same issues that the broad Left is raising today. These were issues of oppression, the gender question and economic oppression by the ruling and influential sections.

It was these reform movements in the tribal belts and elsewhere that politically malevolent outfits like RSS/VHP infiltrated and appropriated. Don’t we know that the Vanvasi Kalyan Samitis existed within the reformist Hindu fold, formed to propagate land reforms, before the RSS, through the VHP, successfully appropriated them? Why did they feel the need to do so? These forces, which represent a class/caste and community driven authoritarian structure, the sangh parivar, saw that the empowering work being undertaken by such movements of reform, would, ultimately be a threat to them.

On both counts, I firmly believe that people will not tolerate the exploitation of their religious sentiments beyond a point. I see this happening sooner rather than later. The last three–four years of thoughtless economic policies have seen a serious incursion into the democratic rights and economic lives of a large number of Indian people. Soon we shall see mass protests of workers and the agricultural class and the impact of these protests.

Eventually, it will be the resurgence of these issues to the forefront of political and public life and discourse that will counter the erosion of the genuine secular principle. And then, hopefully, the move towards the restoration of genuine secularism will begin. n

(As told to Communalism Combat).

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2003 Year 9  No. 84, Cover Story 3

The post State must stay aloof from religion appeared first on SabrangIndia.