Saturday, July 12, 2008

Communist name calling

hilarious pot and black kettle stuff from cpm. a known mouthpiece of chinese interests in india is giving epithets to indian express. given the state of corruption in the media, i would not be surprised if the indian express is indeed peddling american interests. but the communists would do well to look at themselves before calling others names.

what do you think are the chances that this press release will be mentioned by indian express? and chindu?

communist party of india (marxist)
July 12, 2008
Press Release

The reports appearing in the Indian Express (a known mouthpiece of American interests in India) and some other media that Com. Jyoti Basu does not agree with the Party’s decision to vote against the UPA government are fabricated.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

If Indian Express is a mouthpiece of American interests in India, then what about the Times of India and Economic Times?!

As for Chindu, comrade chief will be only too happy to bear and wear the title of "Mouthpiece of Chinese interests in India".

Dirt Digger said...

In a recent editorial in IE, Tavleen Singh contrasts the strange tie-up between the hard-core Islamists and the Commies, in this link.

Pilid said...

DD,
The alliance between the Left and Muslim minorities is a global phenomenon and they share more than just anti-Americanism though that is no doubt central to their convergence. The communists do not necessarily support radicals - if there is a choice between a moderate Islamic group and a radical one, they usually go with the former - but the fact that they make common cause with Islamists of various persuasions is definitely true. There are several other reasons as well: (1) communist stance is often anti-majority (unless the majority is itself anti-America in which case) and that usually translates into standing in defense of the muslim minorities everywhere (to be sure they would do that equally for a christian or other minority as well) (2) the communist economic paradigm shares many similarities with the Islamic welfare model (3) the communists see their own idea of brotherhood as being similar to the Islamic brotherhood concept - they both are supposed to transcend class considerations and share an equally fervent belief in evangelism. In case of India, this concept of equality, in their view, makes Islam a superior alternative to caste-ridden Hinduism (this may of course well be simply an additional argument against Hinduism given their primary tendency to oppose the majority everywhere) (4) they see solidarity with Islam as a vital part of any anti-imperialist alliance against America given the fact that there are 44 muslim-dominated countries across the globe. These, they probably calculate, can be won over through fervent anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric which they see the masses in these countries identifying with.

R said...

Pilid,
communist stance is often anti-majority (unless the majority is itself anti-America in which case) and that usually translates into standing in defense of the muslim minorities everywhere (to be sure they would do that equally for a christian or other minority as well).

I may not agree with you here! Eg. In China, of course they don't support the Muslims -- the minority, right ?! In Kashmir, even on the recent Amarnath issue, they did not seem to have supported Hindus -- the minority! In Kerala there have been many fights between communists and the so called "minorities" whenever muslims/christians attempted to go against the communist govt. So their first concern is not minority or anything but just power and then votes -- nothing else. Ideology hardly plays any role.

Now as you suggest if there were some ideological connections between muslims and communism i guess you would find many Muslims in communist parties. How many Muslim leaders are there in Kerala/WB or anywhere else in the communist parties ? So the point i am trying to make is that the alliance between communists and muslims probably has nothing to do with their ideologies. It is simply power politics. Communists are making use of anti-US muslim emotions to get into power.

Pilid said...

r,

You are correct. To clarify myself, I was referring to communists in the opposition, not in government - I forgot to state that clearly. There is a lengthy history of communist oppression of minorities when they are in government - China, as you point out, is a good example but so was the former USSR which persecuted some to such an extent (like the Ukranians) that they actually welcomed the Nazi invasion during World War II! The communist attempts to reign in the Church-controlled institutions in Kerala also fits into this mold.

But in the opposition, they do usually champion minorities. In India, the question of course is who the majority/minority is - at the state level in Kashmir, Hindus are no doubt a minority but looking at India as a whole, the reverse is true. The communists view the central problem in Kashmir as being between a Hindu-dominated Center attempting to control the politics of a Muslim-dominated state - note the fact that they hold the Centrally appointed Governor responsible for the Amarnath controversy. Of course, electoral calculations are no doubt part of it - had there been a large CPM unit in the state of J&K and they still took the same line, then it may well be said that they really support Muslims, not minorities.

As for why there are very few muslims in the communist parties, this perhaps has a lot to do with their atheist ideology. The centrality of religion in Islamic society makes such association a noxious proposition though they may be much more willing to collaborate with the communists on their own terms.

Hindu Fundamentalist said...

pilid,

to add to your point, the muslims, when in minority, ally with the communists as the communists are useful idiots. once they become a majority, the muslims slaughter all the communists, just as the book orders them to do so. no muslim majority country, including bangladesh, has a communist party.

the communists identifying with the minorities must be some kind of a psychological disorder induced during the communist indoctrination process. the way the class struggle -- fundamental to the great communist revolution -- is defined, it pits the communists, the underdogs, against the all powerful bourgeois. in the absence of a well-defined proletariat and bourgeois, the communists identify with a minority, like a religious or ethnic group.