As protesters marched towards Nabanna, they faced police barricades. Clashes broke out in Howrah on Friday between the police and the activists, who were met with teargas, lathi-charges and water canons. Several protesters suffered injuries and some were rushed to the hospital.

 

 

DYFI state secretary Sayandeep Mitra said, “We were to submit thousands of applications seeking jobs and answers on various other issues from Banerjee, as part of the TMC government’s “Didi ke Bolo (Ask Didi)” public outreach initiative,but as soon as our peaceful rally reached Mullick Ghat (in Howrah), police resorted to unprovoked lathi charge and tear gas shell firing.”

The protesters were also demanding ‘unemployment allowance schemes’ and reduction of cost of Education in Bengal.

“She has failed to bring about economic development in West Bengal. Several business summits were organised over the past few years but not investment has been made. Lakhs of youths are unemployed,” the DYFI state secretary added.

 

Watch videos of clashes here and here.

 

The post Kolkata Police responds to left wing protesters with tear gas, water canons and lathi-charge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The rout in the Lok Sabha polls need not mark the demise of the Left in Kerala. If the Left were to draw on the power of its historical social reform movement that was rooted in a civilisational ethos, it can hold its ground against the BJP in the state.

The Women’s Wall on 1 January 2019: Scene in Kollam | Wikimedia Commons/Sai Shanmugham (CC BY-SA 4.0)
 

Two months after the Lok Sabha elections of 2019, a question that is still being asked is if the decimation of the Left in Kerala in polls is a marker of a long-term and permanent decline of the Communist Party of India (CPM) in the state and the eventual rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The BJP, of course, did not achieve anything at the polls, but was the victory of the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) also just a transition to the establishment of the BJP in the state?

There can be no denying that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has tapped into a yearning and a desire among Hindus nation-wide. Many within the majority community yearn for a validation of their civilisational legacy and want to draw on it while marking pathways to the future. As the forces of Hindutva prepare to breach what they consider their last frontier, can their opponents offer sufficient resistance without delving into this matrix and crafting an alternative interpretation of the heritage?
 

There is a psyche among the Malayali Hindus that combines profound religious devotion with deep scepticism about, even antagonism towards, some of the beliefs, practices and customs associated with the religion.

It might appear strange that Kerala should present itself as the ground for such a battle. Given the demographic mix, a left-of-centre political orientation and a culture distinct from that of the Hindi-belt, one would have thought that the state would not find itself in such a conflict. Those who think so overlook certain facets of the Malayali Hindu mind. There is a psyche among the Malayali Hindus that combines profound religious devotion with deep scepticism about, even antagonism towards, some of the beliefs, practices and customs associated with the religion. This dichotomy exists within a large number of individuals, even among die-hard supporters of the CPI(M). A long, hard and eventually successful struggle for the erasure of inequalities that had been embedded in the institutionalised forms of the creed evokes pride among almost all sections of the community. As does the demolition of the oppressive socio-economic order at the base of these iniquities.

For all that, even the classes that were once the victims of the ancien regime are strongly attached to the rituals of the religion; familiar with its mythologies; and keen to know at least something about its philosophy.

A peek below the surface will show that this duality was in play in the 2019 Lok Sabha election even though it was the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) that won 19 of the 20 seats in the state. Such a result would not have come about if there had not been a significant shift in the vote of the Hindus who form about 55 percent of the population. The consensus across the board is that the vote represented a backlash against the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) for its government’s handling of the Sabarimala issue, one incident in particular.

The Supreme Court verdict lifting the ban on the entry into the hill-shrine of females between the age of 10 and 50 was very much in the foreground when the election campaign got underway.

For the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) the judgement provided an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate its organisational muscle and its widening presence in the state. In presenting itself as the champion of the right of the devout to preserve traditions, it launched a series of agitations for the restoration of the ban. Repeated attempts by feminist activists, whose numbers are insignificant when compared to those of devout Hindu women, provided sufficient provocation for the agitators.

While the LDF declared its support for women’s entry in principle, initially its main focus was on containing the fall-out. It soon became more forceful in asserting its stand and began a counter-campaign that seemed to be gaining traction until it committed a horrendous blunder. Neither the NDA nor the LDF were the beneficiaries of the political climate so created. Instead, the Congress-led UDF gained from the minority consolidation provoked by the Hindutva assertiveness as well as the coalescing of majoritarian sentiment caused by the Left’s approach. Since the minorities generally support the UDF, the shaping of the Hindu vote should attract greater scrutiny.

This was not the first occasion on which the majority community has coalesced to a significant degree and voted against one of the two fronts that have alternatively ruled the Kerala for the past several decades.
 

Malayali Hindus have a strong distaste for the monocultural Hinduism wafting down from the North with its vegetarianism, teetotalism and rigid conservatism.

To illustrate, it would be useful to allude to a phenomenon that was observable in the two years or so before the 2016 assembly elections.

Almost on every occasion on which Hindus gathered as a community during that period–marriages, deaths, clan get-togethers–the conversation would inevitably converge on a single topic. A consensus would also emerge in very short order that the then UDF government was “allowing the minorities to get away with whatever they wanted”. This refrain would be heard irrespective of the caste-composition of the gathering and usually even the UDF-inclined would not contest the statement.

If Malayali Hindus believe that they have been let down by the UDF and LDF on separate occasions, should they not have rallied behind an NDA this time round? A primary reason behind the NDA’s failure to capitalise on the anti-Left sentiment is that the public did not see it as having sufficient electoral muscle. Its organisational network, though growing, is still not potent and its talent pool is limited.

The NDA would be mistaken if it thinks that organisational and leadership deficiencies are the only factors holding it back in Kerala. Such an assessment does not take into account certain other features of the Malayali Hindu mentality. Most basic among these is the community’s belief that it subscribes to and practises a form of the religion that is richer, more diverse, more vibrant and more rooted than those prevalent in other parts of the country. Malayali Hindus have a strong distaste for the monocultural Hinduism wafting down from the North with its vegetarianism, teetotalism and rigid conservatism. Theirs is a Shaktheya-based tradition that does not readily accept Brahmin-Bania restrictions and proffers a much more expansive form of the religion.

In Kerala, religiosity cannot serve as a means for stifling a subaltern upsurge as it has in parts of North India.
 

The prospect of a society that is broad-minded and reason-based, hence truly democratic and secular, is not something distant but eminently within reach in Kerala.

A few among the formerly dominant castes remain nostalgic for the old order, but even they know that there can be no re-establishment of the hierarchy. Reservation in higher education and jobs is about the only issue that causes friction between castes. The RSS does seek to subsume caste distinctions into a communal identity. This goal has no relevance for a people who have long since gone past this conflict and learnt to look beyond caste in their dealings with one another.

Of a similar nature is the ingraining of tolerance towards other communities through the sheer inescapability of living and working closely with Christians and Muslims. Inter-caste and inter-communal marriages no longer cause the inner family tensions that they occasioned in the past. The killing of people, within the state or outside, solely on the basis of their religion or caste, arouses universal condemnation.

Education and the concerted efforts to promote a rationalistic approach have contributed to the shaping of the Malayali Hindu mind. They are scornful when they hear talk about radars that cannot penetrate cloud cover, the transplantation of elephant heads on human bodies or the unique mating practices of peacocks. Many have Christian and Muslim friends who too believe that religion is a private affair and they are hopeful that more among the minorities will in time come to adopt such an outlook.

The prospect of a society that is broad-minded and reason-based, hence truly democratic and secular, is not something distant but eminently within reach in Kerala. Inherent resistance to the revival of medievalism, which many suspect is the Sangh Parivar’s true agenda, should therefore not be a matter of surprise.

Resistance to the pull of Hindutva may not be complete and final. To go by the observable increase in attendance at temples, participation in pujas, reverence for God-men (and one particular God-woman) and the marking of foreheads with sandalwood-paste or ash, religiosity as a component of personal identity does seem to be gaining in importance.

Pilgrims in the Sabarimala Complex | Wikipedia (Avsnarayan CC0 1.0)
 

As the pre-2016 mood and the reaction to the Sabarimala issue seem to indicate, there is a certain susceptibility to the suggestion that Hindus are being hard done by. This feeling hardens when evangelical enthusiasts from one section of the minorities and fundamentalists from anther excoriate Hinduism. Feeding into this sentiment is a resentment at the growing prosperity of the other communities, which is often compared invidiously to their own. Unwarranted though it may be, there is a sense that the community is under pressure from the outside. When the two political formations that have traditionally been regarded as protectors are perceived as being dismissive of these concerns, a third alternative can look attractive.

Until now, this still-soft coalescing of a Hindu political identity has manifested itself in a negative manner at the polls. It has so far been against something, not for anything else. This mental state can change under the Narendra Modi dispensation. The mainstream Malayalam media, print and electronic, has been far less subservient to the central government than its counterparts elsewhere. While the formal media has a high degree of penetration, the counter-currents rippling through the digital networks cannot be ignored. Pro-Sangh sections of the vast Malayali diaspora serve as the conduits for the messaging. People in the state are hence not quarantined from the NDA’s projections. The perception that Modi has found the way to lead the country to prosperity might be more blurred in these parts but it certainly exists.
 

A message that the nation’s onward march is attributable to the revival of civilisational pride has an appeal.

For four decades, Malayalis have availed of a route to riches that has not been so accessible to people elsewhere in the country. The tens of thousands of crores worth of remittances that have poured into Kerala from the Gulf and other parts of the world have not been mobilised in optimum fashion by governments run by either of the two Fronts. Still, the man-made landscape of Kerala has changed dramatically. Signs of change are visible in the ultra-modern buildings to be found in nooks and corners; in the outlets in panchayat centres and even beyond offering up-to-date goods and services; and in the opening of opportunities for new life experiences (food, travel etc.) to sections for whom these were once dreams.

Kerala, of course, has gone far ahead of other states in providing safety nets of various kinds to people of lower income. Political activism at the local level has been a safeguard against non-delivery of government assistance and the diversion of funds.

Prosperity does not usually evoke gratitude for past governmental work (in education for instance) that made it possible. It usually stokes a desire for more.

Qualms of conscience, if any, can be easily suppressed by the auto-suggestion that such attitudinal changes are part of the process of being aspirational. An even stronger pull is being exerted by the BJP’s claims that the country has grown more powerful and assertive over the last five years; that India is about to take its rightful place in the world; and that the change has been wrought through a revival of a civilisational identity.
Post-poll analyses showed that the NDA was able to attract switchovers from sections that traditionally supported one Front or the other. Hindu voters in Kerala generally prefer the forward-looking of the two faces that the BJP presents to the public. At the same time, the backward linkages are important to them. A message that the nation’s onward march is attributable to the revival of civilisational pride has an appeal. The political formations that have dominated state politics have the potential to match the new challenger in both respects. Each can point to significant contributions they have made towards Kerala’s progress, especially in the social sphere, during their separate tenures. They can also claim that the positive interventions they have made were inspired to a good part by ideas drawn from a Hindu ethos.
 

[A] land once described by Swami Vivekananda as a “madhouse of caste” is now home to arguably the most emancipated society in the country.

The Congress to begin with and the Left after it was formed, have both served as vehicles for the propagation of the Malayali Renaissance that itself was brought into being by savants whose outlooks were shaped by Advaita Vedanta. Over the course of the past century, mass movements, initially inspired and led by Shree Narayana Guru, Chattambi Swami, V.T.Bhattatiripad and Ayyankali (to name only the most prominent) have shattered hoary, encrusted, and usually inhumane social institutions. So much so that a land once described by Swami Vivekananda as a “madhouse of caste” is now home to arguably the most emancipated society in the country.

A few Congressmen have drawn on the party’s record of being the organisation that tweaked the civilisation’s trajectory so that it came into closer alignment with progressive trends elsewhere in the world. They point to the fact that their leaders in both the pre and post-Independence decades grafted onto the country’s ethos modern institutions such as democratic governance and the scientific temper after examining whether and how these fitted in.

The Congress benefited to a great extent in 2019 by taking a neutral (the party would say pragmatic) approach to the highly emotive Sabarimala issue. While the UDF’s stance was certainly regarded as non-threatening by devotees, it could hardly be cited as an example of principled politics. All that the UDF had to say on the issue was that, it “must be resolved by the people”. It is highly unlikely that the adoption of pusillanimous stances at moments of societal stress will serve the party when rival formations are giving hard definition to what they stand for.
In contrast, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his government and the LDF demonstrated a real intent to contest the Sangh Parivar’s attempt to appropriate Kerala’s civilisational legacy. When the fight was against a political force that seems intent on propagating distorted readings of the past, preserving illiberal social mores and resuscitating irrational ideas that are also parts of that legacy, there was no other policy that progressives could have chosen. They had to get down to the level of foundational principles. A serious effort to do so was made by the Left as it developed a counter-argument on the Sabarimala issue.
 

[T]he Left did not realise that a certain tone-deafness, discernible in its pronouncements during its counter-agitation, was irritating people in the middle ground.

The Left could not resort to the safest option of pandering to a sentiment shaped by commonly accepted notions about the nature and meaning of the Sabarimala experience. A course it could have taken would have been to treat the confrontation as nothing more than a law and order problem. Instead, in an admirable departure from practices usual to political parties, the LDF tried to make the people internalise an alternative conceptualisation. It marshalled a battery of intellectuals to argue that Sabarimala was a forest shrine of the Adivasis originally; that the ban was a Brahminical subversion of Adivasi traditions, which did not discriminate on basis of gender or age; that the prohibition was of fairly recent origin and had itself stemmed from a court order; and, in general, that the opposition to women’s entry did not have grounding in history or tradition.

As a powerful supplement to this fact-based argument, the Left drew on the inspiring force of the Renaissance. The Left argued that expansion of the liberties of women in all spheres, including that of entry into places of worship, was a logical extension of the reform movement. Those opposed to women entering Sabarimala were thereby depicted as deniers or negators of the Renaissance. The objective clearly was to transform the campaign on the temple issue into a broader one against the orthodoxy, revanchism and illiberalism that form the core of the Hindutva project. The argument did have resonance and the physical manifestation of its appeal was the Women’s Wall formed on 1 January, 2019 along the 620-kilometre stretch of the highway from one end of Kerala to the other.

In retrospect, the confidence-boost generated by that success appears to have led to the LDF’s undoing. On the one hand, it caused a premature slackening of the efforts to further the Renaissance-centred campaign. Second, the Left did not realise that a certain tone-deafness, discernible in its pronouncements during its counter-agitation, was irritating people in the middle ground. This latent though manageable animosity got inflamed when the government misjudged things horribly and failed to stop two women activists from entering the shrine the night after the Women’s Wall. In random conversations, that single act was the one most cited as evidence of the LDF leadership’s anti-Hindu mind-set.

Three months after the polling, even politically neutral sections of the community were seething at what they perceived as government collusion in an act of sacrilege.

As usually happens in such situations, contrasts were instantly drawn with the manner in which the government was pussyfooting around Christian and Muslim issues. Subliminal reservations about “Godless Communists” meshed with latent suspicions that the LDF could at any time do something to appease the minorities and the reflexive outrage could not be contained. The Left did not recalibrate its stance because it failed to comprehend the change in attitude. An echo chamber effect and undue optimism about a feminist tilt towards it, appear to have contributed to the misreading of the situation.
 

The Left can continue to support the lifting of the ban on entry in principle while simultaneously appealing to women to not exercise the right until the centre-mass of devotees had been brought around to the progressive point of view.

To retrieve lost political ground and revive its longer-term campaign, the Left would probably have to go further than merely acknowledge the mistakes it made in the handling of the Sabarimala situation. The insensitivity displayed at a crucial juncture appears to indicate a loss of touch with people outside the circle of the committed, especially when it comes to non-secular issues.

A beginning could perhaps be made by adopting a more nuanced approach on the Sabarimala issue. The Left can continue to support the lifting of the ban on entry in principle while simultaneously appealing to women to not exercise the right until the centre-mass of devotees had been brought around to the progressive point of view. Such a stance could invite accusations of hypocrisy, but it might go someway towards mollifying devout Hindus, especially the vast majority of women among them who consider the Court order an abomination rather than a gift.

Insensitivity or the arrogance of power has sharpened a perception that the CPI(M) cadre has a disgusting penchant for political thuggery. State leaders of the party have repeatedly warned their followers to desist from strong-arm methods and the rates of political killing are not at the level they were in earlier periods. Yet, the party’s image suffers severe damage on every occasion when party members at the local level attack their rivals or office-bearers down in the hierarchy exploit the vulnerable financially and sexually.

The state unit of the CPI(M) is well aware of the fate that befell its sister units in West Bengal and Tripura. It is also under no illusion that Kerala will remain immune to these trends. There are several factors that can provide the Kerala unit with greater resilience. First, land reforms were so thoroughgoing as to have conferred a degree of empowerment on people at the bottom of the pile. That gives them reason to resist a political force with a conservative persona. Second, near universal literacy and the Left’s hegemony in the intellectual sphere, has given the majority of the people a political orientation that cannot easily be changed. Third, the LDF has been out of power as often as it has been in. The need to mobilise and struggle on a regular basis has helped save the organisational structure from being afflicted by the sort of atrophy that weakened the Left in Tripura and West Bengal.

While organisational frailties need to be addressed, the LDF can draw upon its better-than-average record of performance when it faces elections to the local bodies in 2020 and to the Assembly a year after that. Improvements made to government schools can be described as near revolutionary, The public health department has acquitted itself well in dealing with monsoon period epidemics during the last three years and its suppression of the Nipah outbreak was nothing short of spectacular. Electric supply is a lot more reliable and the roads have never been better.

In stark contrast to the period of the preceding UDF regime, corruption scandals have not afflicted the LDF to any sort of debilitating degree. While the Pinarayi government won praise for its handling of the fall out of the 2018 floods, questions were subsequently raised about the systems in place for responding to disasters of the sort, especially alert protocols. To its credit, the LDF is attempting to convert a threat into opportunity by formulating an ambitious Rebuild Kerala Development Programme.
 

To take on the Sangh Parivar at a deeper level, the Left might need to go further and establish that its present day efforts are a continuation of a struggle waged since ancient times.

Larger plans are unlikely to be completed before the LDF finishes its term in office. Meanwhile, it also needs to meet the challenge posed by the central government’s effort to outflank it on the social welfare front by means of direct transfers. Welfare schemes have for long been the forte of Kerala governments, especially of the Left, and the new challenge is being sought to be met by linking assistance to productive work. The revival of agriculture and the boosting of industry in a densely populated and ecologically fragile state remain as problematic as ever and public finance is very much a touch and go affair. For all that, the government gives the impression that it is functioning properly and that is not something that could be said of the previous UDF regime.

Through its conceptual approach to the Sabarimala crisis, the LDF demonstrated an understanding that a mere tabulating of achievements will not suffice to meet the challenge of Hindutva. Plans for the future, programmes underway at present and benefits wrested for the masses in the past by land reforms and assertive trade unionism are important components of an effective response. They might not be sufficient to withstand an onslaught inflamed by civilisational pride. To take on the Sangh Parivar at a deeper level, the Left might need to go further and establish that its present day efforts are a continuation of a struggle waged since ancient times. That it is animated by the rationalistic, emancipatory and egalitarian civilisational spirit, which has always had to contend with the stifling power of the privileged.

Kerala’s great achievement is that its people have attained equality of dignity. This is a value highlighted by the social reformers who drew on ancient writings in Hinduism itself to demonstrate the iniquities in the social order. This fact has, however, for long been suppressed and obfuscated.

The Left might be able to stop the BJP’s march into Kerala if it follows up on the policy developed in the course of the Sabarimala campaign and bases its fightback on a liberating interpretation of this civilisational ethos.

(This article first appeared in The India Forum. It has ben authored by Kesava Menon is a writer and journalist. He was earlier Editor of Mathrubhumi)
 

The post Social Reform Key to Block BJP: Kerala appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2019 elections are significant because for the first time the BJP is hoping to make inroads in the state in two seats. It is fielding Kerala BJP Chief KummanamRajasekharan against two time Congress MP ShashiTharoor from Thiruvananthapuram. On the other hand controversial BJP leader and state’s general secretary K Surendran is contesting from Pathanamthitta against sitting Congress MP Anto Antony and LDF candidate Veena George.

The Congress President Rahul Gandhi’s nomination from the Wayanad seat makes this a particularly important seat to follow this election. This is so because he is pitted in a direct contest with a candidate of the Left Democratic Front (LDF). There is no BJP candidate in the picture at Wayanad.

Of the twenty seats here, Thiruvananthapuram is especiallyexpected to see a “nail biting finish”. In ShashiTharoor’s own words, he is “astonished to see that the BJP has made as many inroads as they have in Thiruvananthapuram on the strength of Sabarimala issue alone”. Despite it’s progressive image, the state has seen the Sabarimala issue dividing the voters on religious lines with many feeling let down by the “left’s haste to implement the Sabarimala order.” After the Supreme Court passed an order allowing entry of women of all ages, several women had tried to enter the temple premises. They faced severe backlash from protesters organised by Sanghpariwar. 

This is also because the state constitutes of as many as 68% Hindus, of which 28% are Nairs.  Around 26.56 percent of the population are Muslims and 18.38 percent are Christians, according to the 2011 Census data.

Both the BJP and Congress (though with slightly differing positions) on the SC’s Sabarimalaverdict, milked the potential for polarisation among Hindu devotees. Despite the Election Commission order which asked political parties to refrain from making Sabarimala an election issue, Prime Minister Modi addressed a rally in Kozhikode on April 12 where he said “BJP will stand with devotees to protect traditions.”

Congress president Rahul Gandhi who was addressing a rally atPathanamthitta, said that people have the right to follow their religion and its practices and his party will never oppose that. An article in Scroll predicted that those who were upset with the Left Democratic Front (LDF) led by CPI (M) over Sabarimala issue are more likely to vote for Congress than BJP.

Tharoor explained this behaviour thus, “The first [for BJP] was to file a review petition and get the Supreme Court to change its mind. They can also bring in a law to change and overturn the judgment. Or you use your authority and introduce an ordinance. But they didn’t do any of these. So I am surprised the BJP propaganda is so effective that it is reaching people when the question remains  ‘what has the BJP done to deserve your support?’”

Another major issue before voters in the southern state were the floods that hit in August last year. One of the worst floods in Kerala history, over 300 people lost their lives. The LDF government, with chief minister, PinarayiVijayan at the helm has been especially appreciated for handling the situation efficiently and making the process corruption free.

Since its election in 2016, the LDF government has increased public spending in education, reviving public sector units and other welfare measures.

The state of Kerala has been a battleground for the left and centrist parties. Between the left and right, the conflict has been violent, leaving a trail of political murders over time. Political parties have made this a campaign issue on several occasions.

As per projections from most of the polls, it is the UDF that is set to win a majority of 20 seats in the state, though a few predictions have given the LDF a lead. This leaves the LDF in a bind, given the situation both here and in Bengal.
 
 

The post In Kerala as the Left and Congress battle it out, will the BJP stand to gain? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An Occupy Wall Street protest march in New York in 2011. Image: Blaine O’Neill (CC BY-NC 2.0)

In order to understand the legacy of 1968, we have to first consider its differing meanings for the west and east of Europe. For the west, May 1968 remains a symbol of liberation and rebellion against entrenched power structures and a landmark cultural moment. But in eastern Europe it is associated with the Prague Spring and Soviet military invasion of Czechoslovakia. On the fiftieth anniversary of 1968, this split continues to define political and cultural divides across the continent. Today, Europe is being confronted by many challenges: the refugee crisis, Brexit, terror attacks, the rise of far-right populism, and conflicts in the east and the Middle East. All of which confront us with the most burning questions: How can we sustain freedom and human rights when the state and international cooperation fall short? What could a new and just solidarity look like?

Nation states are behaving like gated communities.

Europe is not just facing problems, it is also part of the problem. But if we are to counter right-wing populism, first we need a European political coalition brave enough to be critical of the European Union. As one of the leaders of the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) youth organisation said at its party congress in June: “The European Union must die so that Europe can live.” By not addressing the EU’s failings, the left has allowed the right and far right to fill the vacuum. We are still defending the present political status quo when this status quo itself has to be questioned.

The dominant type of EU governance today is externalising problems beyond Europe’s borders, pushing conflicts to the outside to keep the interior safe. As a result of this strategy of bordering conflicts and punishing the peripheries for the Union’s own crisis, we are observing the return of the repressed – the EU is actually surrounded by a belt of wars in its south and east, unavoidably accompanied with an influx of migrants fleeing conflict. The logic of borders is being multiplied inside what was supposed to be a borderless zone; a new European tribalism is on the rise defining the political agenda. Nation states are behaving like gated communities and migrants are being used as scapegoats for problems that predate their arrival.

It’s time we acknowledged the sacred cow of the present state of affairs: liberal democracy. 

It’s time we acknowledged the sacred cow of the present state of affairs: liberal democracy. Isn’t it symptomatic that a common negative signifier of all the political trends that we usually dislike or are frightened with is called “illiberalism” today? The only ideological name liberalism is able to find for its political opponents or enemies is simply “non-liberal” – as if the political spectrum solely contains something that is liberal, and “the rest”, which is not. What a reduced perception and lowered horizon of politics dominate nowadays! Democracy itself has entered a populist modus operandi which conceals political alternatives. 

Whenever we face ideological polarisation, discontent, fear or anger, our typical strategy today is to go back to the “norm”, to the political center that can save us from the extremes. That was, in particular, a recipe of Macron’s success, billed as the “great savior” of Europe, an anti-populist populist proposing “an alternative” from the heart of the establishment. But the root of the problem does not actually lie in the extremes, it is in the center. A populist extreme is a result of the political center’s inability to deal with inequality. The reason why the AfD could unprecedentedly enter the German Bundestag is not because of the country’s strategy of accepting migrants has backfired, as many commentators have come to assume. But because of the political center’s post-ideological “gut und gerne leben” (“live well and happy”) agenda, to quote from Merkel’s famous electoral slogan in 2017. If there is no alternative, one will get Alternative (for Germany).

The left has abandoned utopia – and now the far-right have become the visionaries proposing a dystopian future.

Politics is foremost about dissensus, and the center is currently able to propose only a “non-ideological” “neutral” consensus, with all dissensus and critique taken up by right-wingers. After 1968, we have observed a striking crash of the left. First, it abandoned the working class, then the proletarised middle class. Ultimately, the left has abandoned the people, populus as such – and now it is the far-right who claim to speak “in the name of the people”. The left has abandoned utopia – and now the far-right have become the visionaries proposing a dystopian future. The extreme right has learned lessons from the left, and is even trying now to create a kind of nationalist International. Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon is attempting to unite Europe’s far-right populists by the European Parliament elections in 2019 on the basis of an organisation in Brussels called The Movement (sic!).

The basic political lesson to be drawn from the 20th century for the left today is that it’s over. There is no recipe from the past to follow, we have to formulate new responses to the challenges of today. But what unites the revolt of 1968 and the recent “square movements” throughout the globe is that the political action in both cases took the form of occupying the public space. The problem, then as now, is the lack of a longer term vision for taking power. 

Any progressive movement would do well to remember the famous motto of the Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organisation: “Be prepared! – Always prepared!” The problem today is that the far-right is getting ready and the left is not. Realpolitik is conducted not on the squares, but by organised structures and institutions after the revolution. The very notion of revolution has been fetishised, which overlooks that hard-won victories can be reversed without a proper political structure to implement its agenda and incorporate it into society.

At a time when authoritarian and fascizoid pathologies are cynically pretending to be the new norm, what we need is not a pseudo-liberal “balanced objectivity” – which is not just simplistic but also harmful – but a new political subjectivity. The great value of the notion of subjectivity – both in philosophical and political terms – is that by employing it we also are immediately reinstating and emphasising the existence of truth. We live today not in the post-truth world but in the pre-truth world – in a world where truth has not arrived yet. And truth is not only concrete, as Hegel put it, but also always partisan and subjective. There is no other genuine politics than the politics of truth.

The only realistic political strategy is indeed to demand the impossible.

If there is any basic political principle necessary to follow today, it is the most famous slogan of May 1968 – “Be realistic – demand the impossible!” The most dominant ideology at present is a fusion of neoliberalism, austerity and nationalistic hatred. Militarism, xenophobia, social and economic discrimination, isolationism, impoverishment are not just possible, they are welcomed. While welfare, affordable housing, living wages, free healthcare are deemed “unrealistic”.

The boundaries of the possible have radically shifted, and what was hard to predict even a decade ago – wars in Ukraine and Syria, ISIS, extreme right-wing populism on such a scale, Brexit, Trump – became not just possible, but normalised. In such difficult political times, it’s not enough to defend what little we have, hoping for moderate reforms. On the contrary, reforming the existing system is becoming harder and harder to the point where a complete transformation may be more feasible.

That’s why the only realistic political strategy is indeed to demand the impossible. In other words, the impossible is a disruption, in which politics becomes possible. If we don’t demand the impossible, we will lose what seems to be still possible today.

Vasyl Cherepanyn is head of the Visual Culture Research Center, Kyiv and curator of The Kyiv International – ’68 NOW project

The post “Demand the impossible”: what the left should learn from 1968 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Najeeb Ahmad’s mother with members of SDPI stages a protest to demand justice for her son

It is over two years since Najeeb Ahmad, a PhD student at JNU, disappeared from the campus. The night before, he was allegedly brutally assaulted by a mob of students claiming allegiance to the Vidyarthi Parishad. It is also alleged that he spoke derisively against Hindu religion which infuriated a section of students. As news of his disappearance spread, his family members and students of the university protested against the insensitive handling of the affair by the JNU administration. They also blamed the Delhi police for being lackadaisical in their efforts to trace the whereabouts of Najeeb and their failure to even question students who were part of the mob which had assaulted Najeeb. From the very beginning, the police and the JNU administration has tried to sell the whole episode as a fight between two student groups.

This however is not true. Even if we concede that Najeeb might have offended the religious sensibilities of some students, that is not a licence to nearly lynch him. The mater should have been reported to the concerned office within JNU and even a police complaint could have been lodged against him.

But then Najeeb became the precursor of what was to come later: the system of instant justice; where mobs lynch Muslims merely on the basis of suspicion, without any regret or remorse. In most cases, the police are more than willing to dilute cases against the accused and are reluctant to bring the culprits to book. Something similar happened in Najeeb’s case. The only time they started having some semblance of seriousness was when the courts told them to double their efforts to find the missing student. Random searches were made here and there just for appearance sake. But by then almost a year had elapsed and crucial evidence which might have given some clues about his whereabouts were lost. What was worse: malicious leaks were fed to a pliant media which started debating how Najeeb had joined the ISIS.

Two years later, the CBI has now filed a closure report in the case. Alarmingly, the High Court allowed the CBI to do so despite the protestations of the family concerned. One cannot even fathom what would be crossing the minds and hearts of Najeeb’s mother, who has been running from pillar to post to seek justice for her son. Her only consolation if at all it is one: there are many Najeebs who have been failed by the system.

But then, this story is not complete without calling out the system. And the system in this case did not just consist of those who assaulted Najeeb but also by those who claim to be his greatest benefactors. It is certainly true that Najeeb was assaulted by right wing hoodlums but then what of the other kind of violence which this fellow endured, something which perhaps was decisive in his decision to leave the campus. On the night of the assault, Najeeb was not offered any counselling although there is an on-campus medical facility. What is astounding is that the same night, he was humiliated and asked to leave the hostel, not just in presence of the wardens but also the president of the leftist student union.

 As a fresher on campus, Najeeb must have heard that the Left student union would be sensitive and considerate, given his religious identity. This is not hard to believe: the left actually sells itself as the champion of minorities on campus. Imagine the mental agony of this student when he would have realised that no just the administration and the right wingers but also the leftists had turned against him.

Here was a boy, who had freshly got admission in one of the hostels in JNU and probably had heard much about the progressive and leftist traditions of JNU, was witnessing in front of him that the same left, in cahoots with the administration, was asking him to leave the hostel as a form of punishment.  It was perhaps this realisation that made him leave the campus the following morning and left must be called out for its complicity in his disappearance. Who is to blame for his disappearance? Of course, the right-wing hoodlums who beat him up that night but then what about the glorious left which failed to protect him. And not just failed to protect him but in a way facilitated his forced exit from the campus.

It is rather hypocritical that the left has now Najeeb’s disappearance into an annual ritual and another occasion to hold candle light marches for him. This is nothing but pure and callous politics at its best. First you allow a person to get nearly lynched and then you do politics over his disappearance. It must be remembered that unlike many others who have been targeted by the system, Najeeb came from a very humble background. Lacking in social network, the family had no one but JNU students to bank upon in order to seek even a semblance of justice. But then, whether it is the left or the right, only those embedded in power networks have any hope of getting justice.

It is utterly shameful that a campus which prides itself over it sensitive and progressive character failed to even give a call for a day long strike to protest against Najeeb’s disappearance. The reluctance to take up the issue was visible right from the very beginning. It was actually the pressure of common students which forced the administration and leftists to join the struggle; otherwise they were mostly interested in burying the issue. The so-called progressive teachers of this campus acted as if nothing had happened. The very radical teacher’s union just sat quietly through the entire episode and did not even have the courage to protest against the administration. More importantly they refused to see the incident as one which involved the targeting of Muslim identity.

When we remember Najeeb year after year, let us not forget the dubious role that the left played in the entire incident.      

Arshad Alam is a NewAgeIslam.com columnist

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Why the Left Needs to Be Called out for Its Role in Najeeb’s Disappearance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

N Sai Balaji won the post of president by a margin of 1000 votes, defeating Lalit Pandey of the ABVP. While Balaji bagged 2161 votes. Sarika Chaudhary of the DSF defeated ABVP candidate Geetasri Boruah by a margin of 1680 votes for the post of vice president. Aejaz Ahmed Rather of the SFI garnered 2423 votes and won the post of general secretary after defeating Ganesh Gurjar of the ABVP by 1300 votes. The post of joint secretary was won by Amutha of AISF who bagged 2047 defeating ABVP’s Venkat Choubey by a margin of 800 votes.

(Courtesy: newsx.com)

With the sweet victory, the left alliance stood vindicated against what has now come to be known as a “high handed authoritarian” administration led by vice chancellor Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar in the past year. Several agitations especially on seat cuts, irregular implementation of reservation policy, mandatory attendance, procedural violations in faculty appointments and the VC’s sudden decision to open engineering and management schools in the campus, for which he requested for a loan of Rs. 515 crore.

Counting of votes for the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students’ union polls was halted on Saturday after an alleged disruption by member of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) members. The ABVP members alleged that they were not informed about the process. However, due to the efficient handling of almost a riot like situation by the Election Commission (EC), the counting process could be carried on smoothly. In the past, JNU’s EC has earned a reputation of being able to conduct peaceful elections efficiently.

 The voter turn-out in the current election was 67.8%, which is being seen as the highest in the recent years with over 5000 students casting their votes.

Besides the Left alliance and the ABVP, there were candidates of the Congress-affiliated NSUI (National Students’ Union of India) and the BAPSA (Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association), a student group advocating principles of Birsa Munda, Babasaheb Ambedkar and Jotirao Phule.

The Left alliance is likely to gain confidence from its stupendous performance in securing votes in JNU’s science schools, where ABVP has traditionally dominated. Another important sweep is that in the school of life sciences. The school was in news because of the Atul Johari sexual assault case in which women students strongly came out against the professor for harassing several women students in the past. While the left groups raised voice in this case, ABVP remained conspicuously silent.

 During the elections, students have accused ABVP of “setting a violent precedent”. Despite getting a clear mandate from students, the left alliance is likely to face hostility from the administration and hence challenges in functioning.

 https://sabrangindia.in/article/93-percent-jnu-teachers-vote-vcs-removal

https://sabrangindia.in/interview/attack-jnu-systemic-and-unrelenting-only-one-part-anti-democratic-assault-modi-regime-umar
 

The post Left’s clean sweep in JNU: Indications of a bright future or a challenge ridden path? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A people’s assembly in Sarajevo. Demotix/Aurore Belot. All rights reserved.

In a recent article for the Washington Post Sheri Berman worries whether democratic socialists, who are now advancing on the left, believe in democracy. Looking back into twentieth century history, she reminds us that the difference between democratic socialists and social democrats lay in the fact that the former were unwilling to compromise over entering governmental coalitions with bourgeois parties – in that way inadvertently helping along the advent of fascist regimes.

However interesting in terms of a lesson in history, the problem we are facing today is completely different. It is the mainstream left, the Social Democrats, who have for decades now been sacrificing democracy at the altar of the unassailable forces of the global market. In contrast to this, from the democratic socialist perspective today, democratization is the political project of the left. Rebuilding the left and reversing the democratic erosion which we are currently witnessing across Europe and the US are one and the same project.
 

Left and Right

Another fallacy upheld by many contemporary analyses of democratic erosion is that concern over democracy, and the commitment to protecting it, are shared by mainstream political elites of the Left and Right (see for instance Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018, Zielonka 2018). However, in her analysis of two waves of democratic collapse in interwar Europe and in 1970s Latin America, Nancy Bermeo has shown that at the pivotal moment party elites of mainstream Left and Right did not stand together against extremists and populists. In most cases, the breakdown of democracy followed a sequence in which Centre-Right and Right elected governments were replaced by Right-wing dictatorships. In contrast to democratic breakdown, democratic advances have historically been linked with the growth of workers’ movements and socialist parties. At the pivotal moment party elites of mainstream Left and Right did not stand together against extremists and populists.

If this is true, then the decline of the Left and the current democratic malaise are two sides of the same coin. Party competition is re-aligning on the transnational cleavage fuelled by the popular reaction to economic integration – a cleavage which the mainstream left has failed miserably to address. The mainstream left is stuck, the supposed irreversibility of economic globalisation posing the imperative it cannot overcome. In the meantime, new right-wing parties with distinct positions on Europe and immigration are addressing people’s concerns and articulating them into portfolios of nationalism, xenophobia and so forth.
 

“Democracy’s fickle friends”?

Another common weakness of contemporary analysis is that in explaining the rise of new right parties, it focuses on describing the ‘enemy within’ and adjudicating between economic distress and cultural prejudice as key drivers of the authoritarian-populist vote. Analysing the populist explosion, the resurgence of illiberalism and the death of democracy, analysts evoke the image of the ordinary citizen walking over to the ‘Dark side’: voting for populists, mobilizing around bigoted referendum votes, reading and distributing vitriolic content online. Though the literature offers some variance as to why this happens – ranging from the old-school dislike of the mob to benevolent interpretations that aim to show the rationality of this political behaviour – ordinary people, as Nancy Bermeo has argued, invariably turn out as ‘democracy’s fickle friends’. Populism signals the breakdown in the mutual learning between the mainstream left and ‘ordinary people’.

But if it is true that the future of democracy and the rebuilding the left are one and the same project, then this position is untenable. Instead, we need to assert that populism signals the breakdown in the mutual learning between the mainstream left and ‘ordinary people’. The mainstream left has become distrustful of mass popular engagement with politics. How did this happen to the political force that historically emerged from popular struggles against injustice and relations of domination?

In Kriesi’s et al landmark study of post-1968 social movements, the crucial pivot around which social movements manoeuvred was the configuration of power on the left and the presence or absence of the left in government. In a complete reversal of fortunes, with the left in Europe structurally weak and ideationally disoriented, ours is a time when progressive social movements and civic initiatives represent the anchor for rebuilding left political parties.

The main question therefore becomes – how can organizational experiences and discursive struggles of movements such as the People Against Evictions in Spain, the Rosia Montana movement in Romania or the Right to the City movement in Croatia be harnessed to re-build left political forces?
 

European peripheries offer crucial lessons

Crucial lessons about both the future of the Left, and of democracy, are to be learned by analysing European peripheries as spaces in which the contradictions of ‘democratic capitalism’ are particularly pronounced.

Contrary to the convergence thesis that was embedded in the project of European integration, peripheral economies never caught up with the core, and the economic crisis of 2008 made this disparity wider. Economic divisions into creditor and debtor nations acquired their political equivalent between rule makers and rule takers. Since 2008 we have witnessed the emergence of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, as well as mass pro-democracy mobilizations across Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria all the way to Slovenia.

Though economic integration has created winners and losers everywhere in Europe, in Europe’s southern and eastern peripheries economic austerity and the ‘hollowing out’ of politics created stronger pressures on democracy. And yet, despite such circumstances, since 2008 we have witnessed the emergence of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, as well as mass pro-democracy mobilizations across Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria all the way to Slovenia. Submitting these experiences to systematic comparative scrutiny should yield valuable lessons both for democracy and for rebuilding the left.

Perhaps it would be useful to conceptualize mass mobilizations and progressive social movements as episodes of democratic learning which lay the foundations of an organizational and ideational renewal of the left.

Civic roles for the future

Much democratic theory understands democratic learning as the slow process through which populations acquire democratic value orientations that support and stabilize democratic institutions (remember Dahrendorf’s quip about constitutional reform taking 6 months, economic reform 6 years, and cultural change 60 years).

In contrast, I understand democratic learning as happening when people are mobilized into forms of democratic political participation; when they mobilize to oppose environmentally destructive projects or city re-developments which enclose public spaces. Such spatial-environmental struggles set in motion dynamics of incorporation and contestation that Robert Dahl described as fundamental for democratic development. Democratic socialists should place tools for mobilizing populations into civic roles, from the municipal level upwards, at the centre of their strategy.
Drawing on such episodes, democratic socialists should place tools for mobilizing populations into civic roles, from the municipal level upwards, at the centre of their strategy. This is a way to unleash pluridimensional democratic learning, ranging from transformative biographic effects on people engaging in politics, across rebuilding capacity for political mobilization, to a programmatic renewal that should help left forces weave a convincing narrative focused on the future, rather than on lamenting the past.

Madrid, Spain, March 3, 2018. Hundreds take to the street of Madrid to demand fair and accessible housing for all, an end to speculation on banking and real estate, and for the inalienable right of every citizen. Mario Roldan/Press Association. All rights reserved.

Danijela Dolenec is a social science scholar and political activist in the municipalist platform Zagreb is Ours. She is currently leading a research project entitled Disobedient Democacy: A Comparative Analysis of Contentious Politics in the European Semi-periphery.

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/

The post Disobedient democracies on Europe’s periphery: why are these crucial for rebuilding the left? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chalilakath Kunahmed Haji (1866-1919) was a teacher who liberated Islamic religious studies and Islamic education from the traditional format – pushing for more openness in the Darul Uloom to strengthen religious education. He insisted on the importance of girls’ education. Sheikh Mohammed Hamadani Thangal (d. 1922) established schools in remote areas where girls were also welcomed, established adult education centres and formed welfare associations to assist the community. Vakkom Mohammed Abdul Khader Moulavi (1873-1932) played a central role in the Islamic renaissance through the United Muslim Group (Aikya Muslim Sangham), to raise the consciousness of the Muslim community. He ran important journals such as al- Islam (1918) and Deepika (1931) that concentrated on social and political matters. Swadeshabhimani Ramakrishna Pillai published his work in a newspaper owned by Vakkom Moulavi. Kattilasseri Muhammed Musaliar (1879-1943), a veteran of the Malabar Rebellion, organised tenants in Eranad and Valluvanad. A number of important individuals worked hard to bring modern educational practices into the Muslim community – such as Koyakkunju Sahib, a teacher to members of the Arakkal royal family. C.I. Ahmed Moulavi translated the Quran into Malayalam against objections that it should not even be translated Muhammed Abdurrahman inspired Ahmed Moulavi to do the translation. Following Ahmed Moulavi was Chekannur Maulvi (1936-1993), who provided new and fresh interpretations of the Quran.

In Kerala, the main Muslim community draws from the Sunni tradition. Sunnis in Kerala are of the view that it is acceptable for Muslims to live under a secular government that allows for their observations of religious beliefs and rites. The mujahid movement, which developed in Kerala, attempted to modernise Islamic practice, including allowing women into mosques. But these movements are not alone. There is the Jamaat-e-Islami, an organization which does not see religion and the state as separate and which desires to establish an Islamic state against secularism. The communal agenda of the Jamaat-e-Islami puts forward an agenda for an Islamic State that resembles the RSS view of a Hindu State. What this agenda suggests is to isolate Muslims from the rest of Kerala’s society.

In Our Times
The US attempt to create hegemony in the Gulf and the in the Arab world in general puts pressure on these workers and their remittances. After regime change operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US attempts to cause disruption in Iran and Syria. Terrorists are encouraged to disrupt Syria, which is one of the few secular states in the region. Muslims in India have protested the interventions of the United States. It is a serious matter that countries such as India are unwilling to resist the imperialism of the US. The USSR was a close ally of many nations in the Arab world. When the USSR was in place, the US could not intervene as they are now doing. The USSR prevented it. Only with the collapse of the USSR has the US been able to exert its war machine into the region.

The Sangh Parivar attempts to implement the Hindutva agenda in India. The destruction of the Babri Masjid (1992) in Ayodhya cut at secularism and democracy at its roots. The Congress, which claims to be a secular party, could not prevent the Sangh Parivar’s ascent. The State – under Congress rule – was not willing to give the lead against communal attacks, despite the entreaties by the Left and other secular parties. This created an atmosphere that drew a small section of minorities towards terrorism. Terrorism is not a phenomenon that emanates from any particular religion. The explosions carried out under the leadership of the Sangh Parivar in places like Malegaon, Goa and Mecca Masjid, points the finger to this reality. It should be possible to discern that it is important in the present national context to strengthen the political force that is an alternative to the Congress and the BJP. The Congress and the BJP represent US partisanship in matters including foreign policy and the economic policy they put forward.

Muslims in Kerala have been able to be far ahead of their people in any other part of India. The total number of all minorities in Kerala is almost half of the population. Religious discrimination or suppression is not felt here as in other States. A sizeable section of Muslim community has become rich. The leadership of the community is with them. In the name of minority rights what is protected is the interest of the elite of the community. They utilise the support of the community to intervene in power politics. The community’s elite has no qualms in allying even with BJP to share power. The approach adopted by the Muslim League, which claims that it stands for the rights of Muslims, is to highlight the interests of such richer sections. The RSS tries to propagate a communal agenda, pointing its finger to this richer section and the Muslim League, which protect their interests. In that way, they try to foment feelings against Muslim masses.

Political policies of the Right are intended to lead to communal polarization. They are prepared to ally with casteist and religious forces to confront the Communist movement. Such forces started to grow under the shade of the Right. Beypore-Vadakara alliances in earlier elections proved that it is possible for them to ally even with the BJP. The tie-up, which UDF had in the last Lok Sabha elections with NDF belongs to this pattern. When the Left rules there are no communal clashes in our State. That is not the position when UDF rules. This is the result of using religion for political ends. A change is necessary in this.

In the history of Muslims in Malabar one cannot perceive the agenda of establishing political power. The path they have generally adopted is to live with all sections of people. Communal forces working among Muslims are going ahead with the political agenda of smashing it. This will isolate Muslims from the general stream and prepare the ground for majority communal forces to grow. It can be seen that all communal forces are targeting the working class movements. What majority-minority communalisms are doing is to destruct the interests of basic sections of people.

The agenda of the communal forces is to pit people against each other. This has to be resisted. A common space has to be built. To strengthen public education is central in this context. Institutions where children are believers and non-believers can mix together will function as a strong foundation for secularism. Casteist-religious forces run unaided educational institutions, where children study only with their communal sections. This becomes a hindrance for the development of a secular consciousness. A society where secularism and democracy must flourish requires the development of a perspective that is congenial to modern times. There must be space for a community to be critical of itself, to speak out against leading members who take retrograde positions. Such harmful positions – such as on the matter of age of consent for marriage – will only hurt society. It is necessary to expand the style of life for members of various religious communities, to bring them together into public celebrations of festivals and family gatherings (those of marriage and those of death). Religious believers must take the initiative to isolate those who propagate communalism and extremism in every religion. The model put forward by freedom fighters including Gandhiji and Maulana Abulkalam Azad must be propagated. Progressive minded people must be able to intervene to strengthen the advance of renaissance within religion.
A secular society is most important as far as minorities are concerned, but it is in fact important for the entire society.Instead of strengthening such a society, communal extremist organizations are trying to get the Muslim masses to move away from the mainstream. We must resist their agenda. The Muslim League compromises with such forces. Their intervention to protect the interests of the rich in the Muslim community is against the interests of the majority of the Muslims, most of whom struggle to make a better life.

Whichever be the religion one believes in, issues of life are common. Only when they are nourished can unity of common issues be understood. It is such a united stand in terms of social life and political life that is essential for a secular society. The CPI (M) is committed to the organization of life such that it creates the least friction on communal lines. Communists work to advance social life on the basis of class unity, while intervening to solve problems of social backwardness. The party follows the way put forth by EMS on these issues. The party is committed to bestow special attention to the issues of suffering sections of the people. In Kerala, SC-ST, women, minorities, OBCs and economically backward sections of forward communities – all these confront issues.3 It must be possible to view each oppression with special emphasis. The party has always taken care to handle issues of Muslim sections with care on that basis.

It was the Communist movement which continuously intervened taking up the difficulties of the minority section of people. It was the government of 1957 which for the first time in India introduced reservation for Muslims. Muslim tenants got ownership of land as a result of land reforms.

Pinarayi Vijayan is the Chief Minister of Kerala. He also served in the government of Kerala as Minister of Electric Power and Co-operatives from 1996 to 1998.A member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), he was the longest-serving secretary of the Kerala State Committee of the CPI(M) from 1998 to 2015.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Muslims of Malabar and the Left 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 post The Left Loses an Election in Tripura, but it has not been Defeated appeared first on SabrangIndia.