Suspected Maoists ambushed a police party and killed 12 men in the forests
China has advocated sincerity and patience in resolving the long-standing Sino-Indian border dispute.
the Communist Party of India (CPI) on Tuesday made it clear that it has “no intention to either destabilise this government or country or force an election at this time.”
“There is no contradiction between the August 4 statement and Mr. Advani’s Hyderabad statement. It is unfair to try and pit me against Mr. Advani as a section of the media is now doing.”
While it is always a good deed when one of the world’s richest men takes an interest in higher education, it is unlikely that Vedanta University will achieve the desired results, no matter how much money Mr. Agarwal spends on it.
Given the contemporary realities, one cannot be very optimistic about
Vedanta’s chances for success. Let us hope that those funding the
project will have the foresight to anticipate the problems and maximise
the chances for success.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Monday reiterated the positions taken on the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal by its Polit Bureau and Central Committee
Many in India’s strategic community fear that the bombings in Hyderabad — the first major strike directed at non-Muslim civilians since the Mumbai serial bombings of 2006 ...
State tops the Planning Commission's list of best performers in terms of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) by registering a growth rate of 23.50 per cent at the constant prices. Its nearest rival is Chhattisgarh with 12.30 per cent growth rate, followed by Gujarat with 12.17 per cent GSDP for 2006-07.
Except A&N Islands, all these States have been under the BJP's rule for quite a few years.
Reiterating its demand that the Government press the “pause” button on the India-U.S. nuclear deal, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said the Government could suggest a mechanism of its choice for evaluating the implications of the deal on the country’s interests.
The Central Committee noted the objections and apprehensions voiced by scientists, public figures and intelligentsia on the nuclear deal. It fully endorsed the stand taken by the Polit Bureau that the bilateral agreement would bind India into a strategic alliance with the U.S. with long-term consequences.
“Since the first joint statement on strategic partnership released by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George Bush in July 2005, we have been drawing attention to the dangers of India being turned into a supplicant of U.S. imperialism,” the party organ, People’s Democracy, says in an editorial in its latest issue.
Although she herself remained staunchly Catholic, her brand of religion
was not exclusive. Convinced that each person she ministered to was
Christ in suffering, she reached out to people of all faiths. The very
faith that sustained her infuriated her detractors, who saw her as a
symbol of a right-wing conspiracy and, worse, the principal mouthpiece
of the Vatican’s well-known views against abortion. Interestingly, such
criticism was largely unnoticed in India, where there has always been
great reverence for holiness, and where people admired and respected
her irrespective of her faith or their own.
Prominent intellectuals caution government against the agreement
“Considering that a majority of the Indian Parliament is opposed to the
‘deal’ as it currently stands, it is outrageous and despicable to
suggest that a section of this opposition is taking its cue from China
or Iran or elsewhere, or that foreign policy is being ‘communalised’.
No one needs a certificate of patriotism from the communal forces and
their friends in the media.
The Left Parties have acted in a most responsible fashion in refusing
to join the BJP-inspired moves to bring down this government. They have
not demanded that the agreement be repudiated as such.
No party leader, either in Delhi, Kolkata or Hyderabad, had used the term “withdrawing support to the government.”
Following the footsteps of Marx, the Indian communists have deep hatred of anything Indian and are opponents of any kind of pride in Indian heritage. The communists also hold that India is not one nation but a ‘collection of nationalities’.
Another major tenet of Indian Marxist’s orthodoxy is that for national reconstruction you have to first destroy the existing nation.The communists have had many ideological splits. Communists in India
are splintered into several groupings like the CPI, CPM, CPI (M-L),
Maoists and the People’s War Group. But despite several ‘historical
blunders’ that they keep committing with regularity, they have all
remained steadfast to the twin agenda of weakening and destroying the
existing Indian nation and obliterate the ‘bourgeois’ notion of pride
in India’s past.Thus in 1942 the communists not just supported the British but
also acted as their stool pigeons. Many underground revolutionaries
were betrayed to the British secret police, who went on to hang them.
George Orwell has written extensively on this subject and evidence of
this is littered in declassified files of British India, now available
at India Office Library and Records in London.Subhas Chandra Bose, who fought for Indian freedom and was no
Japanese stooge, was denounced as fascist and vilified by the Marxists.
In today’s communist-ruled Bengal, the towering contributions of Swami
Vivekananda are a distant memory and sought to be pushed out of public
memory. Neither is Aurobindo Ghosh remembered. All the three are
inconvenient to Marxist ideology.On November 13, 1962 while replying to the discussions in the Rajya
Sabha, Lal Bahadur Shastri pointed out that Jyoti Basu equated India
with China during the war and called the Chinese aggression as provoked
by Indian statements and “across an imaginary line called MacMohan
line”. But the Marxists were not merely satisfied with words. Kalimpong
town had become a den of Chinese spies. Every move of the Indian army
was monitored and reported to the enemy. Like in 1942, the communists
played a major role in helping the Chinese.The long-time ideological opponents of Indian nationalism painted a
frightening scenario when India tested nuclear weapons in 1998. They
had greeted with a deafening silence each of the 45 declared nuclear
tests carried out by China since 1964. How come that throughout this
feverish pursuit by China of the means of nuclear deterrence, the
Indian communists never showed the slightest anxiety about a possible
outbreak of a nuclear war in Asia? The answer lies in their conviction
that China's policy stemmed from genuine nationalism as distinguished
from India's alleged pseudo-nationalism.The Common Minimum Programme talks about changing the Indo-Israel
relations. The allusion is directly to the defence relationship. It is
through this that India had been promised the Falcon airborne system
that would give India a decided advantage over China and Pakistan in
air battles. China too wanted this system but the contract was
cancelled under American pressure. Now by downgrading relations with
US, the Marxists wish to cripple Indian defence and help China.In all their plans of spreading communism in India, the
Marxists believe that the strong Indian armed forces are the biggest
obstacle. Their hatred of the armed forces is seen through many petty
acts that the West Bengal government regularly inflicts on the armed
forces personnel. Presently the Indian army seems to be getting an
upper hand over the Pakistani sponsored terrorists thanks to the
infantry equipment and training co-ordination with Israelis. The
Marxists hope that severing this link will automatically weaken the
armed forces, their biggest adversary.
But is foot in mouth disease the only problem with this diplomat? A plain reading of Mr. Sen’s remarks as reported by Mr. Haniffa reveals a state of mind that has crossed all limits of sobriety in relation to the nuclear deal; that is soaked in foreign policy dependence; that is intolerant, and arrogantly so, of any opposition to the deal;
What would be the next step how far the party will be ready to push the envelope so far as the existence of the UPA government is concerned are some of the questions that the central committee is likely to discuss.
Manish Gilitwala, representing Surat east constituency in the Assembly, and Shankar Varli, who was elected from Umbergaon, remained present on the dais with Mr. Modi and were later “blessed” by the Chief Minister for joining the BJP.
While several readers agree that the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation deal should be put on hold under the present politically murky and changing circumstances, some readers have raised questions about what they perceive to be changes and even a ‘contradiction’ in The Hindu’s editorial position on the deal. One reader has specifically asked: “What has changed” between August 6, when the newspaper published the le ader “A sound and honourable 123,” and August 20, when it published the leader “Put the nuclear deal on hold”? We welcome this kind of serious public debate, which we believe will help clarify the key issues and their implications in a changing political context.
This is our editorial assessment and it can be seen that there is no contradiction between the leaders of August 6 and 20.
“The Centre should recall the Ambassador if it has any sense of self-respect,” Mr. Karat said during a brief stopover here on his way from New Delhi to Mudigonda in Khammam district where he inaugurated a memorial built for the seven persons who died in police firing on Left parties’ workers last month.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) Central Committee member Subhashini Ali on Tuesday said the women in communist countries were better-placed in terms of right to work, equal opportunities in education, and provision of networks of social services for family and child care.
CPI (M) general secretary Prakash Karat said here on Tuesday that the independent foreign policy of the country was in danger as the Manmohan Singh government was drifting more and more into a strategic alliance with the United States.
Addressing a rally organised by the Left parties in commemoration of those killed in the police firing here on July 28, he said the UPA government’s nuclear agreement with the U.S. had serious ramifications.
The party on whose support the government depends for its survival cited the “widespread opposition” to the agreement and the fact that “a majority in Parliament do not support” it.
This is the text of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau resolution.
In an article in the latest issue of People’s Democracy, he says a wise and expedient step for the government would be to acknowledge that “there is widespread opposition to the agreement.”
Speaking at the official State-level Independence Day celebrations after unfurling the national flag in Mehsana, Mr. Modi blamed the Centre for the alleged delay in the allotment of plots to tribals.
Claiming that the common people were not getting justice in the Modi
administration, Mr. Patel said: “Is not injustice to the people the
most indisciplined act?”
Such behind-the-scenes bipartisanship in promoting “national interest” on an issue that successive governments in New Delhi will be seized of for the next decade, at least, is believed to have been partly behind Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s surprise decision to call the Left’s bluff on the nuclear deal in an exclusive interview to The Telegraph during the weekend.While the Telegraph is dismissive of Left, as it should rightly be, Chindu goes into ecstatic frenzy projecting the crucial role played the Left on the nuclear deal.
Clearly, the Prime Minister was aware of all this while telling the Left that enough was enough.The implication was that the Left was
irrelevant. He added that the “relevant” opposition “may have
differences on aspects of the 123 Agreement. But fundamentally they
agree that Indo-US relations are important”, he added.
The
Prime Minister, too, it would seem from all this, believes that
opposition from the Left to the nuclear deal is irrelevant, at least
for now.
The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal would come under the focus of the two Left parties at a possible meeting on Tuesday which would include a discussion on the strategy to be adopted in Parliament.
We can also see how Chindu is charitable to Mr. Gopalaswami by saying
he "clarifies", instead of saying his "rebuttal" to Chindu's report.
"Gopalaswami clarifies on Supreme Court affidavit"
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/12/stories/2007081255280900.htm
Here is Chindu's earlier mischief:
"Gopalaswami's stand opposed"
Special Correspondent
http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/11/stories/2007081159210100.htm
Posted by Anonymous to The Chindu at August 12, 2007 11:43 AM
Writers and artists have been targeted many times by the fundamentalist fringe in India but the cowardly attack on Taslima Nasrin is a first on several counts. The exiled Bangladeshi feminist writer was roughed up in the full glare of cameras during a function held at the Hyderabad Press Club. The goons belonging to the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen were led by three party MLAs. Far from being remorseful, Majlis president Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi said the three le gislators and four others who were arrested “deserved a pat on their back for what they have done”; and noted regretfully that “we should have done more.” Other Majlis leaders threatened to kill Ms. Nasrin if she set foot in Hyderabad again. Under the circumstances, there is a widespread feeling that those responsible for the attack — who were charged with rioting, trespass, and criminal intimidation and released on bail in a few hours after arrest — were let off lightly under the aegis of a soft government. While the Majlis is not a formal ally of the ruling Congress in Andhra Pradesh, it has some kind of understanding with it. This was in evidence when the Majlis backed the Congress candidate in last year’s Karimnagar Parliamentary by-election.
The attack could have been prevented had the organiser of the functionFinally, N.Ram points the finger and it is at the organiser -- how brilliant.But the muslim angst needs a few words of comfort. And N.Ram does exactly that in his next line. The MIM aggressiveness is justified on political grounds. If N.Ram can get so dirty, he might as well get naked.
informed the police in advance about the presence of Ms. Nasrin
Concerted efforts by political rivals — particularly, the CommunistHail the communist party, naked.ram.
Party of India (Marxist), which has highlighted the utter lack of
development in this area — to break the Majlis’ hold over the Old City
seem to have rattled its leadership.
As for Ms. Nasrin, she has been a target of Islamists ever since the publication of Lajja,Then he goes on to discredit Taslima.
a novel that captures her response to the anti-Hindu riots that broke
out in parts of Bangladesh following the demolition of the Babri Masjid
in late 1992. Her account of the communal frenzy a
nd the mistreatment of the Hindu minority made her persona non grata
in Bangladesh. Her views on religion, sexual freedom, and women’s
emancipation have led to death threats from Muslim fundamentalists.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) Members of Parliament will walk out if there is a vote on the 123 agreement with the United States, as sought by the Bharatiya Janata Party, according to veteran Marxist leader Jyoti Basu.
Mr. Dasgupta said it was a “national tragedy” that a government that enjoyed the Left support was going in the direction of a strong partnership with the “imperialist” United States not just on economic but also on strategic cooperation.
DON'T BARK, BITE: Following the Left diktat on N-deal, PM told Prakash Karat they should agree to part ways gracefully.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Friday said the attack on Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin “militates against the freedom of expression.”
“Such attacks unleashed by self-appointed custodians of religious
culture and morality have increased in recent times, and have
victimised artists such as M.F. Husain and Shivaji Panikker, among
others.
The Congress on Wednesday said it was confident that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Government would be able to convince the Left parties that the steps taken to finalise the 123 nuclear agreement with the United States was in the “best interests of the nation.”
Growing public unease over the governments’ move in various States to hand over community land to big companies and influential groups in the name of promoting Special Economic Zones and bio-diesel cultivation will manifest itself in a mass padayatra on August Kranti Diwas (August 9) planned by various activist groups
The CITU leader claimed that road-blocks, stopping of trains and closure of agricultural mandis and 20 Food Corporation of India godowns were the highlight of the strike but equally notable was the participation by workers in brick-kilns, beedi-makers, head-load workers, private transporters, those employed in the small textile units and toddy-tappers.
Unorganised workers in industries such as Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers, HPCL, South Eastern Coalfields, Western Coalfields and other units also participated, Mr. Pandhe said. In Delhi, there was a good response to the strike call among beedi-workers, rickshaw-pullers, contract workers, and street vendors. Demonstrations were held at Chandni Chowk, Old Delhi Railway Station, and industrial areas.
Veteran Marxist leader Jyoti Basu emphasised here on Sunday the need
for the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to extend its influence to
new areas across the country.
“It is sad that we have not been able to do so as much as was hoped. We have been able to move into some parts of south India but that is not true as far as most parts of north India are concerned,” Mr. Basu said. The matter should be deliberated at future party conferences, he added.
Left to review ties with UPA tomorrow
Since the Hindu has not used my letters I summarize here points made in the hope that this discussion can reach a wider forum.
Dear Sir,
In recent weeks, Mr N Ram has written articles in The Hindu ("The Politics Of Tibet: A 2007 Reality Check", July 5, 2007) and Frontline ("Future Tibet", July 14-27, 2007), which present a remarkably rosy picture of the situation in Tibet and are uncritically supportive of Chinese policies in the region. I have written to him a number of times pointing out some of the inconsistencies in his reporting and the fact that such misrepresentations of fact could be seen as pure propaganda on behalf of the Chinese government. Unfortunately, Mr Ram has not deemed it necessary to extend even the courtesy of an acknowledgment letter, let alone to provide a platform for a fair debate on the issue of Tibet. I summarize here, some of the main points I made in my letters to Mr Ram in the hope that this discussion can reach a wider forum.
On more than one occasion, Mr Ram makes the crude comparison of the Dalai Lama's international popularity as a religious leader to Ayatollah Khomenei, thereby signalling his intentions to demonise him. He then rails against what he describes as the Dalai Lama's "alignment with colonial interests and western powers...". One could look at this criticism in the context of China's vast holding of US Treasury bonds, which literally keeps its economy afloat, and ask, who is more aligned with western powers - the Chinese government or the Dalai Lama? One could also easily point the finger of colonialism to China's forcible occupation of Tibet.
Mr Ram claims that, "while the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation belongs to the mystical-religious realm and asks a lot from 21st century believers, the Dalai Lama's approach even to rebirth is decidedly ideological-political." However, he also says that the Chinese government continues to follow "centuries-old custom and tradition that empower it to recognise and appoint both the Dalai and the Panchen Lama." The historical accuracy of this statement is debatable but it begs the question, why does an avowedly atheistic Communist Party find it necessary to involve itself in the "mystical-religious realm" in the 21st century?
Mr Ram contends that China's constitution "guarantees religious freedom to all citizens and regional autonomy to ethnic minorities in extensive parts of a giant country." Is it really enough for a journalist to cite the existence of a law to prove that all is as it should be? Surely he is aware of the ongoing repression of religious freedom in Tibet? Today, it is a crime in Tibet to be found in possession of the Dalai Lama's picture. Amnesty International's 2006 China report stated that in Tibet, "freedom of religion, expression and association continued to be severely restricted and arbitrary arrests and unfair trials continued." On the fate of groups such as Falun Gong, even the avowedly left-wing journal, CounterPunch, has made grave allegations against the Chinese government (see article in the October 1-15, 2006 issue).
Mr Ram mentions "China's unprecedented economic growth" and "inclusive and nuanced socio-political and cultural policies" as markers of its "exceptional patience" in dealing with the Tibet issue. This glowing picture is at odds with the reality of a country where the growing division between the rich and the poor saw no less than 23,000 incidents of rural and urban unrest in 2006, many of which were brutally quelled by force.
Even more beguiling is Mr Ram's continued faith in the Communist Party of China's Marxist credentials - "The law... defines national regional autonomy as the basic political system of the Communist Party of China to solve the country's ethnic issues using Marxism-Leninism". That the CPC has now launched a form of 'Leninist capitalism' untrammeled by democratic freedoms or trade union rights is fairly well-known. The only ideology guiding China's present rulers is that of absolute power at any cost.
By consigning Tibet's fate so unambiguously to the implied benevolence of its Chinese overlords, Mr Ram seems to forget that India has a stake in this matter. He dismisses the Dalai Lama's claim that Tibet had "been a strategic 'buffer state' in the heart of Asia guaranteeing the region's stability" for centuries. Yet, the truth is that until the People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1950, India and China had never shared a common border. What is Mr Ram's response to Chinese Ambassador to India, Mr Sun Yuxi’s blithe assertion last November that "the whole of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. And Tawang is only one of the places in it."? Surely, even he knows that had Tibet not been forcibly deprived of its sovereignty, such imperious statements from his Chinese friends would not be forthcoming? Would any Chinese newspaper publish a defence of India's sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh in the manner in which The Hindu and Frontline see fit to blindly defend the Chinese line on Tibet? Or does Mr Ram have a different measure for basic democratic freedoms in different countries?
It is truly unfortunate that Mr Ram should choose to deprive his readership of a balanced perspective on the question of Tibet.
Yours sincerely,
Tenzing Sonam
28 July, 2007
Tenzing Sonam is a Tibetan filmmaker and writer based in New Delhi. His most recent film is the Tibetan feature film, Dreaming Lhasa.
Referring to the Left struggle for land distribution to the poor in Khammam, Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Basu said “it is pointless” to compare it with the Nandigram agitation, which is “undemocratic” while the “one in Andhra Pradesh is democratic.”
The prolonged trial gave the ailing Mr. Maudhany a martyr’s halo as the trial drew to a close.
The PDP leader appeared to have been denied bail on account of the
sensational nature of the case — not because there was anything
material to suggest that he had any role in the horrible acts of
terrorism.
Posts
All Comments
