The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. “Dictatorship or democracy” is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of “democracy,” that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model. They are two opposite poles, both alike being far removed from a genuine socialist policy. The proletariat, when it seizes power, can never follow the good advice of Kautsky, given on the pretext of the “unripeness of the country,” the advice being to renounce socialist revolution and devote itself to democracy. It cannot follow this advice without betraying thereby itself, the International, and the revolution. It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.
“As Marxists,” writes Trotsky, “we have never been idol worshippers of formal democracy.” Surely, we have never been idol worshippers of socialism or Marxism either. Does it follow from this that we may throw socialism on the scrap-heap, à la Cunow, Lensch and Parvus [i.e. move to the right], if it becomes uncomfortable for us? Trotsky and Lenin are the living refutation of this answer.
“We have never been idol-worshippers of formal democracy.” All that that really means is: We have always distinguished the social kernel from the political form of bourgeois democracy; we have always revealed the hard kernel of social inequality and lack of freedom hidden under the sweet shell of formal equality and freedom – not in order to reject the latter but to spur the working class into not being satisfied with the shell, but rather, by conquering political power, to create a socialist democracy to replace bourgeois democracy – not to eliminate democracy altogether.
But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
Doubtless the Bolsheviks would have proceeded in this very way were it not that they suffered under the frightful compulsion of the world war, the German occupation and all the abnormal difficulties connected therewith, things which were inevitably bound to distort any socialist policy, however imbued it might be with the best intentions and the finest principles.
A crude proof of this is provided by the use of terror to so wide an extent by the Soviet government, especially in the most recent period just before the collapse of German imperialism, and just after the attempt on the life of the German ambassador. The commonplace to the effect that revolutions are not pink teas is in itself pretty inadequate.
Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.
Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.
What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”
This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”
Panchayat Act of Jharkhand should incorporate all PESA provisions and Panchayet Elections should be held as early as possible
A day-long workshop was organized in Ranchi on 21 February 2010 by the Jharkhand Kranti Dal in which the Panchayet election in Jharkhand, issue of BPL cards to the poor and implementation of NREGA were discussed. Sri B.P.Kesri, Sri N.C.Surin, Faisl Anurag, Arati Kujur and Santosh Rana were present as resource-persons in the workshop.
Sri B.P.Kesri described the political situation in Jharkhand. He expressed his dismay at the large-scale corruption by the ministers and government officials in Jharkhand. While thousands of crores were being looted by the unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats, the people were denied the basic right to food, drinking water, housing, education and jobs. He also pointed out the loopholes in the Panchayet Act.
Mr Surin, an expert in the matter of tribal development, CNT Act and customary tribal system sharply pointed out how the provisions of the PESA were violated in the Jharkhand Panchayet Act. He suggested that the Panchayet Act of Jharkhand should be so amended as to incorporate the provisions of the PESA,1997.
Santosh Rana, General Secretary of the CPI(ML)PCC said that no state government in India has empowered the Panchayats as per provisions of the 73rd and 74th Ammendment to the Constitution of India.The said amendment has prepared a Schedule of 27 subjects (like land-reform, forest management, poverty alleviation etc) to be handed over to the Panchayats.But no state government in India has yet handed over any one of the above subjects to the Panchayats, he said. For example, poverty alleviation is a programme to be carried out by the Panchayats. For this to be effectively done, the Panchayat should be given power to identify the poor. But nowhere has this power been given to the Panchayats. The state governments prepare the BPL lists with instructions from Planning Commission to keep the BOL number within a preassigned limit. He suggested that 80 per cent of the people in Jharkhand should be given BPL cards and the Panchayats be given the power to prepare the BPL list. He insisted that the Gram Sabha (constituted with all voters in the village as members) should be treated as fourth tier in the governance and all important decisions of the Panchayat have to be passed by the Gram Sabha as the budget of the Central Government is passed by the Parliament.He said that there are many shortcomings in the Panchayat Act of Jharkhand and the people should build up movements to rectify them. But Panchayat Election should be held as early as possible. In the absence of an elected body,the bureaucrats have all the power in their hands.Corruption can be checked if the Panchayats function and there is a strong mass movement to mobilize the Gram Sabhas. He also said that the movements against imperialist globalisation, state terror including Operation Greenhunt and forcible land acquisitions for corporates should be linked to the movement for people’s power in which the organs of people’s power have to be electable by the people, responsible to them and revocable. If instead, somebody tries to build a regime under ONE PARTY, then that regime is bound to be bureaucratic, irrespective of the intentions of the leaders of that party. The people of the world have to take important lessons from the experiences in Soviet Union and China.
Arati Kujur described the atrocities being committed by the security forces and asked everyone to oppose them She said that the people were eagerly waiting to participate in the Panchayat elections and these elections should be held as early as possible.
The CPI(ML) severely condemns the killing of Lalmohan Tudu, the President of PCPA in Lalgarh by CRPF on 22-02-2010.
The CPI(ML) supported the just demands of the people raised by the PCPA in November 2008. The state, instead of conceding their just demands resorted to repressive tactics and armed CPI(M) groups were engaged along with police. At this stage, armed Maoist squads intervened and started their programme of eliminating all political forces who differ with them. Since the entry of the joint forces, people’s suffering has gone up and many people have left the area.
The PCC CPI(ML) demands immediate end to hostilities by the security forces, the CPI(M) squads and the Maoist squads and creation of an atmosphere where every person can freely express his political opinion. Only in such an atmosphere, the people can discuss the form of self rule required for their development.
Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism by Samir Amin
Samir Amin is director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal. His recent books include The Liberal Virus (Monthly Review Press, 2004), A Life Looking Forward (Zed Books, 2007), and The World We Wish to See: Revolutionary Objectives in the Twenty-First Century, forthcoming from Monthly Review Press.
James Membrez translated this essay from the original French.
All the currents that claim adherence to political Islam proclaim the “specificity of Islam.” According to them, Islam knows nothing of the separation between politics and religion, something supposedly distinctive of Christianity. It would accomplish nothing to remind them, as I have done, that their remarks reproduce, almost word for word, what European reactionaries at the beginning of the nineteenth century (such as Bonald and de Maistre) said to condemn the rupture that the Enlightenment and the French Revolution had produced in the history of the Christian West!
On the basis of this position, every current of political Islam chooses to conduct its struggle on the terrain of culture—but “culture” reduced in actual fact to the conventional affirmation of belonging to a particular religion. In reality, the militants of political Islam are not truly interested in discussing the dogmas that form religion. The ritual assertion of membership in the community is their exclusive preoccupation. Such a vision of the reality of the modern world is not only distressing because of the immense emptiness of thought that it conceals, but it also justifies imperialism’s strategy of substituting a so-called conflict of cultures for the one between imperialist centers and dominated peripheries. The exclusive emphasis on culture allows political Islam to eliminate from every sphere of life the real social confrontations between the popular classes and the globalized capitalist system that oppresses and exploits them. The militants of political Islam have no real presence in the areas where actual social conflicts take place and their leaders repeat incessantly that such conflicts are unimportant. Islamists are only present in these areas to open schools and health clinics. But these are nothing but works of charity and means for indoctrination. They are not means of support for the struggles of the popular classes against the system responsible for their poverty.
On the terrain of the real social issues, political Islam aligns itself with the camp of dependent capitalism and dominant imperialism. It defends the principle of the sacred character of property and legitimizes inequality and all the requirements of capitalist reproduction. The support by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian parliament for the recent reactionary laws that reinforce the rights of property owners to the detriment of the rights of tenant farmers (the majority of the small peasantry) is but one example among hundreds of others. There is no example of even one reactionary law promoted in any Muslim state to which the Islamist movements are opposed. Moreover, such laws are promulgated with the agreement of the leaders of the imperialist system. Political Islam is not anti-imperialist, even if its militants think otherwise! It is an invaluable ally for imperialism and the latter knows it. It is easy to understand, then, that political Islam has always counted in its ranks the ruling classes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Moreover, these classes were among its most active promoters from the very beginning. The local comprador bourgeoisies, the nouveaux riches, beneficiaries of current imperialist globalization, generously support political Islam. The latter has renounced an anti-imperialist perspective and substituted for it an “anti-Western” (almost “anti-Christian”) position, which obviously only leads the societies concerned into an impasse and hence does not form an obstacle to the deployment of imperialist control over the world system.
Political Islam is not only reactionary on certain questions (notably concerning the status of women) and perhaps even responsible for fanatic excesses directed against non-Muslim citizens (such as the Copts in Egypt)—it is fundamentally reactionary and therefore obviously cannot participate in the progress of peoples’ liberation.
Three major arguments are nevertheless advanced to encourage social movements as a whole to enter into dialogue with the movements of political Islam. The first is that political Islam mobilizes numerous popular masses, which cannot be ignored or scorned. Numerous images certainly reinforce this claim. Still, one should keep a cool head and properly assess the mobilizations in question. The electoral “successes” that have been organized are put into perspective as soon as they are subjected to more rigorous analyses. I mention here, for example, the huge proportion of abstentions—more than 75 percent!—in the Egyptian elections. The power of the Islamist street is, in large part, simply the reverse side of the weaknesses of the organized left, which is absent from the spheres in which current social conflicts are occurring.
Even if it were agreed that political Islam actually mobilizes significant numbers, does that justify concluding that the left must seek to include political Islamic organizations in alliances for political or social action? If political Islam successfully mobilizes large numbers of people, that is simply a fact, and any effective political strategy must include this fact in its considerations, proposals, and options. But seeking alliances is not necessarily the best means to deal with this challenge. It should be pointed out that the organizations of political Islam—the Muslim Brotherhood in particular—are not seeking such an alliance, indeed even reject it. If, by chance, some unfortunate leftist organizations come to believe that political Islamic organizations have accepted them, the first decision the latter would make, after having succeeded in coming to power, would be to liquidate their burdensome ally with extreme violence, as was the case in Iran with the Mujahideen and the Fidayeen Khalq.
The second reason put forward by the partisans of “dialogue” is that political Islam, even if it is reactionary in terms of social proposals, is “anti-imperialist.” I have heard it said that the criterion for this that I propose (unreserved support for struggles carried out for social progress) is “economistic” and neglects the political dimensions of the challenge that confronts the peoples of the South. I do not believe that this critique is valid given what I have said about the democratic and national dimensions of the desirable responses for handling this challenge. I also agree that in their response to the challenge that confronts the peoples of the South, the forces in action are not necessarily consistent in their manner of dealing with its social and political dimensions. It is, thus, possible to imagine a political Islam that is anti-imperialist, though regressive on the social plane. Iran, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and certain resistance movements in Iraq immediately come to mind. I will discuss these particular situations later. What I contend is that political Islam as a whole is quite simply not anti-imperialist but is altogether lined up behind the dominant powers on the world scale.
The third argument calls the attention of the left to the necessity of combating Islamophobia. Any left worthy of the name cannot ignore the question des banlieues, that is, the treatment of the popular classes of immigrant origin in the metropolises of contemporary developed capitalism. Analysis of this challenge and the responses provided by various groups (the interested parties themselves, the European electoral left, the radical left) lies outside the focus of this text. I will content myself with expressing my viewpoint in principle: the progressive response cannot be based on the institutionalization of communitarianism,(1) which is essentially and necessarily always associated with inequality, and ultimately originates in a racist culture. A specific ideological product of the reactionary political culture of the United States, communitarianism (already triumphant in Great Britain) is beginning to pollute political life on the European continent. Islamophobia, systematically promoted by important sections of the political elite and the media, is part of a strategy for managing community diversity for capital’s benefit, because this supposed respect for diversity is, in fact, only the means to deepen divisions within the popular classes.
The question of the so-called problem neighborhoods (banlieues) is specific and confusing it with the question of imperialism (i.e., the imperialist management of the relations between the dominant imperialist centers and the dominated peripheries), as is sometimes done, will contribute nothing to making progress on each of these completely distinct terrains. This confusion is part of the reactionary toolbox and reinforces Islamphobia, which, in turn, makes it possible to legitimize both the offensive against the popular classes in the imperialist centers and the offensive against the peoples of the peripheries concerned. This confusion and Islamophobia, in turn, provide a valuable service to reactionary political Islam, giving credibility to its anti-Western discourse. I say, then, that the two reactionary ideological campaigns promoted, respectively, by the racist right in the West and by political Islam mutually support each other, just as they support communitarian practices.
Modernity, Democracy, Secularism, and Islam
The image that the Arab and Islamic regions give of themselves today is that of societies in which religion (Islam) is at the forefront in all areas of social and political life, to the point that it appears strange to imagine that it could be different. The majority of foreign observers (political leaders and the media) conclude that modernity, perhaps even democracy, will have to adapt to the strong presence of Islam, de facto precluding secularism. Either this reconciliation is possible and it will be necessary to support it, or it is not and it will be necessary to deal with this region of the world as it is. I do not at all share this so-called realist vision. The future—in the long view of a globalized socialism—is, for the peoples of this region as for others, democracy and secularism. This future is possible in these regions as elsewhere, but nothing is guaranteed and certain, anywhere.
Modernity is a rupture in world history, initiated in Europe during the sixteenth century. Modernity proclaims that human beings are responsible for their own history, individually and collectively, and consequently breaks with the dominant pre-modern ideologies. Modernity, then, makes democracy possible, just as it demands secularism, in the sense of separation of the religious and the political. Formulated by the eighteenth century Enlightenment, implemented by the French Revolution, the complex association of modernity, democracy, and secularism, its advances and retreats, has been shaping the contemporary world ever since. But modernity by itself is not only a cultural revolution. It derives its meaning only through the close relation that it has with the birth and subsequent growth of capitalism. This relation has conditioned the historic limits of “really existing” modernity. The concrete forms of modernity, democracy, and secularism found today must, then, be considered as products of the concrete history of the growth of capitalism. They are shaped by the specific conditions in which the domination of capital is expressed—the historical compromises that define the social contents of hegemonic blocs (what I call the historical course of political cultures).
This condensed presentation of my understanding of the historical materialist method is evoked here simply to situate the diverse ways of combining capitalist modernity, democracy, and secularism in their theoretical context.
The Enlightenment and the French Revolution put forward a model of radical secularism. Atheist or agnostic, deist or believer (in this case Christian), the individual is free to choose, the state knows nothing about it. On the European continent—and in France beginning with the Restoration—the retreats and compromises which combined the power of the bourgeoisie with that of the dominant classes of the pre-modern systems were the basis for attenuated forms of secularism, understood as tolerance, without excluding the social role of the churches from the political system. As for the United States, its particular historical path resulted in the forming of a fundamentally reactionary political culture, in which genuine secularism is practically unknown. Religion here is a recognized social actor and secularism is confused with the multiplicity of official religions (any religion—or even sect—is official).
There is an obvious link between the degree of radical secularism upheld and the degree of support for shaping society in accord with the central theme of modernity. The left, be it radical or even moderate, which believes in the effectiveness of politics to orient social evolution in chosen directions, defends strong concepts of secularism. The conservative right claims that things should be allowed to evolve on their own whether the question is economic, political, or social. As to economy the choice in favor of the “market” is obviously favorable to capital. In politics low-intensity democracy becomes the rule, alternation is substituted for alternative. And in society, in this context, politics has no need for active secularism—“communities” compensate for the deficiencies of the state. The market and representative democracy make history and they should be allowed to do so. In the current moment of the left’s retreat, this conservative version of social thought is widely dominant, in formulations that run the gamut from those of Touraine to those of Negri. The reactionary political culture of the United States goes even further in negating the responsibility of political action. The repeated assertion that God inspires the “American” nation, and the massive adherence to this “belief,” reduce the very concept of secularism to nothing. To say that God makes history is, in fact, to allow the market alone to do it.
From this point of view, where are the peoples of the Middle East region situated? The image of bearded men bowed low and groups of veiled women give rise to hasty conclusions about the intensity of religious adherence among individuals. Western “culturalist” friends who call for respect for the diversity of beliefs rarely find out about the procedures implemented by the authorities to present an image that is convenient for them. There are certainly those who are “crazy for God” (fous de Dieu). Are they proportionally more numerous than the Spanish Catholics who march on Easter? Or the vast crowds who listen to televangelists in the United States?
In any case, the region has not always projected this image of itself. Beyond the differences from country to country, a large region can be identified that runs from Morocco to Afghanistan, including all the Arab peoples (with the exception of those in the Arabian peninsula), the Turks, Iranians, Afghans, and peoples of the former Soviet Central Asian republics, in which the possibilities for the development of secularism are far from negligible. The situation is different among other neighboring peoples, the Arabs of the peninsula or the Pakistanis.
In this larger region, political traditions have been strongly marked by the radical currents of modernity: the ideas of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the communism of the Third International were present in the minds of everyone and were much more important than the parliamentarianism of Westminster, for example. These dominant currents inspired the major models for political transformation implemented by the ruling classes, which could be described, in some of their aspects, as forms of enlightened despotism.
This was certainly the case in the Egypt of Mohammed Ali or Khedive Ismail. Kemalism in Turkey and modernization in Iran were similar. The national populism of more recent stages of history belongs to the same family of modernist political projects. The variants of the model were numerous (the Algerian National Liberation Front, Tunisian Bourguibism, Egyptian Nasserism, the Baathism of Syria and Iraq), but the direction of movement was analogous. Apparently extreme experiences—the so-called communist regimes in Afghanistan and South Yemen—were really not very different. All these regimes accomplished much and, for this reason, had very wide popular support. This is why, even though they were not truly democratic, they opened the way to a possible development in this direction. In certain circumstances, such as those in Egypt from 1920 to 1950, an experiment in electoral democracy was attempted, supported by the moderate anti-imperialist center (the Wafd party), opposed by the dominant imperialist power (Great Britain) and its local allies (the monarchy). Secularism, implemented in moderate versions, to be sure, was not “refused” by the people. On the contrary, it was religious people who were regarded as obscurantists by general public opinion, and most of them were.
The modernist experiments, from enlightened despotism to radical national populism, were not products of chance. Powerful movements that were dominant in the middle classes created them. In this way, these classes expressed their will to be viewed as fully-fledged partners in modern globalization. These projects, which can be described as national bourgeois, were modernist, secularizing and potential carriers of democratic developments. But precisely because these projects conflicted with the interests of dominant imperialism, the latter fought them relentlessly and systematically mobilized declining obscurantist forces for this purpose.
The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is well known. It was literally created in the 1920s by the British and the monarchy to block the path of the democratic and secular Wafd. Their mass return from their Saudi refuge after Nasser’s death, organized by the CIA and Sadat, is also well known. We are all acquainted with the history of the Taliban, formed by the CIA in Pakistan to fight the “communists” who had opened the schools to everyone, boys and girls. It is even well known that the Israelis supported Hamas at the beginning in order to weaken the secular and democratic currents of the Palestinian resistance.
Political Islam would have had much more difficulty in moving out from the borders of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan without the continual, powerful, and resolute support of the United States. Saudi Arabian society had not even begun its move out of tradition when petroleum was discovered under its soil. The alliance between imperialism and the traditional ruling class, sealed immediately, was concluded between the two partners and gave a new lease on life to Wahabi political Islam. On their side, the British succeeded in breaking Indian unity by persuading the Muslim leaders to create their own state, trapped in political Islam at its very birth. It should be noted that the theory by which this curiosity was legitimated—attributed to Mawdudi—had been completely drawn up beforehand by the English Orientalists in His Majesty’s service.(2)
It is, thus, easy to understand the initiative taken by the United States to break the united front of Asian and African states set up at Bandung (1955) by creating an “Islamic Conference,” immediately promoted (from 1957) by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Political Islam penetrated into the region by this means.
The least of the conclusions that should be drawn from the observations made here is that political Islam is not the spontaneous result of the assertion of authentic religious convictions by the peoples concerned. Political Islam was constructed by the systematic action of imperialism, supported, of course, by obscurantist reactionary forces and subservient comprador classes. That this state of affairs is also the responsibility of left forces that neither saw nor knew how to deal with the challenge remains indisputable.
Questions Relative to the Front Line Countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Iran)
The project of the United States, supported to varying degrees by their subaltern allies in Europe and Japan, is to establish military control over the entire planet. With this prospect in mind, the Middle East was chosen as the “first strike” region for four reasons: (1) it holds the most abundant petroleum resources in the world and its direct control by the armed forces of the United States would give Washington a privileged position, placing its allies—Europe and Japan—and possible rivals (China) in an uncomfortable position of dependence for their energy supplies; (2) it is located at the crossroads of the Old World and makes it easier to put in place a permanent military threat against China, India, and Russia; (3) the region is experiencing a moment of weakness and confusion that allows the aggressor to be assured of an easy victory, at least for the moment; and (4) Israel’s presence in the region, Washington’s unconditional ally.
This aggression has placed the countries and nations located on the front line (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Iran) in the particular situation of being destroyed (the first three) or threatened with destruction (Iran).
Afghanistan
Afghanistan experienced the best period in its modern history during the so-called communist republic. This was a regime of modernist enlightened despotism that opened up the educational system to children of both sexes. It was an enemy of obscurantism and, for this reason, had decisive support within the society. The agrarian reform that it had undertaken was, for the most part, a group of measures intended to reduce the tyrannical powers of tribal leaders. The support—at least tacitly—of the majority of the peasantry guaranteed the probable success of this well-begun change. The propaganda conveyed by the Western media as well as by political Islam presented this experiment as communist and atheist totalitarianism rejected by the Afghan people. In reality, the regime was far from being unpopular, much like Ataturk in his time.
The fact that the leaders of this experiment, in both of the major factions (Khalq and Parcham), were self-described as communists is not surprising. The model of the progress accomplished by the neighboring peoples of Soviet Central Asia (despite everything that has been said on the subject and despite the autocratic practices of the system) in comparison with the ongoing social disasters of British imperialist management in other neighboring countries (India and Pakistan included) had the effect, here as in many other countries of the region, of encouraging patriots to assess the full extent of the obstacle formed by imperialism to any attempt at modernization. The invitation extended by one faction to the Soviets to intervene in order to rid themselves of the others certainly had a negative effect and mortgaged the possibilities of the modernist national populist project.
The United States in particular and its allies of the Triad in general have always been tenacious opponents of the Afghan modernizers, communists or not. It is they who mobilized the obscurantist forces of Pakistan-style political Islam (the Taliban) and the warlords (the tribal leaders successfully neutralized by the so-called communist regime), and they who trained and armed them. Even after the Soviet retreat, the Najibullah government demonstrated the capability for resistance. It probably would have gained the upper hand but for the Pakistani military offensive that came to the support of the Taliban, and then the offensive of the reconstituted forces of the warlords, which increased the chaos.
Afghanistan was devastated by the intervention of the United States and its allies and agents, the Islamists in particular. Afghanistan cannot be reconstructed under their authority, barely disguised behind a clown without roots in the country, who was parachuted there by the Texas transnational by whom he was employed. The supposed “democracy,” in the name of which Washington, NATO, and the UN, called to the rescue, claim to justify the continuation of their presence (in fact, occupation), was a lie from the very beginning and has become a huge farce.
There is only one solution to the Afghan problem: all foreign forces should leave the country and all powers should be forced to refrain from financing and arming their allies. To those who are well-intended and express their fear that the Afghan people will then tolerate the dictatorship of the Taliban (or the warlords), I would respond that the foreign presence has been up until now and remains the best support for this dictatorship! The Afghan people had been moving in another direction—potentially the best possible—at a time when the West was forced to take less interest in its affairs. To the enlightened despotism of “communists,” the civilized West has always preferred obscurantist despotism, infinitely less dangerous for its interests!
Iraq
The armed diplomacy of the United States had the objective of literally destroying Iraq well before pretexts were actually given to it to do so on two different occasions: the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then after September 11, 2001—exploited for this purpose by Bush with Goebbels-style cynicism and lies (“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”). The reason for this objective is simple and has nothing to do with the discourse calling for the liberation of the Iraqi people from the bloody dictatorship (real enough) of Saddam Hussein. Iraq possesses a large part of the best petroleum resources of the planet. But, what is more, Iraq had succeeded in training scientific and technical cadres that were capable, through their critical mass, of supporting a coherent and substantial national project. This danger had to be eliminated by a preventive war that the United States gave itself the right to carry out when and where it decided, without the least respect for international law.
Beyond this obvious observation, several serious questions should be examined: (1) How could Washington’s plan appear—even for a brief historical moment—to be such a dazzling success so easily? (2) What new situation has been created and confronts the Iraqi nation today? (3) What responses are the various elements of the Iraqi population giving to this challenge? and (4) What solutions can the democratic and progressive Iraqi, Arab, and international forces promote?
Saddam Hussein’s defeat was predictable. Faced with an enemy whose main advantage lies in its capability to effect genocide with impunity by aerial bombardment (the use of nuclear weapons is to come), the people have only one possible effective response: carry out resistance on their invaded territory. Saddam’s regime was devoted to eliminating every means of defense within reach of its people through the systematic destruction of any organization and every political party (beginning with the Communist Party) that had made the history of modern Iraq, including the Baath itself, which had been one of the major actors in this history. It is not surprising in these conditions that the Iraqi people allowed their country to be invaded without a struggle, nor even that some behaviors (such as apparent participation in elections organized by the invader or the outburst of fratricidal fighting among Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs) seemed to be signs of a possible acceptance of defeat (on which Washington had based its calculations). But what is worthy of note is that the resistance on the ground grows stronger every day (despite all of the serious weaknesses displayed by the various resistance forces), that it has already made it impossible to establish a regime of lackeys capable of maintaining the appearance of order; in a way, that it has already demonstrated the failure of Washington’s project.
A new situation has, nevertheless, been created by the foreign military occupation. The Iraqi nation is truly threatened. Washington is incapable of maintaining its control over the country (so as to pillage its petroleum resources, which is its number one objective) through the intermediary of a seeming national government. The only way it can continue its project, then, is to break the country apart. The division of the country into at least three states (Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab) was, perhaps from the very beginning, Washington’s objective, in alignment with Israel (the archives will reveal the truth of that in the future). Today, the “civil war” is the card that Washington plays to legitimize the continuation of its occupation. Clearly, permanent occupation was—and remains—the objective: it is the only means by which Washington can guarantee its control of the petroleum resources. Certainly, no credence can be given to Washington’s declarations of intent, such as “we will leave the country as soon as order has been restored.” It should be remembered that the British never said of their occupation of Egypt, beginning in 1882, that it was anything other than provisional (it lasted until 1956!). Meanwhile, of course, the United States destroys the country, its schools, factories, and scientific capacities, a little more each day, using all means, including the most criminal.
The responses given by the Iraqi people to the challenge—so far, at least—do not appear to be up to facing the seriousness of the situation. That is the least that can be said. What are the reasons for this? The dominant Western media repeat ad nauseam that Iraq is an artificial country and that the oppressive domination of Saddam’s “Sunni” regime over the Shia and Kurds is the origin of the inevitable civil war (which can only be suppressed, perhaps, by continuing the foreign occupation).The resistance, then, is limited to a few pro-Saddam hard-core Islamists from the Sunni triangle. It is surely difficult to string together so many falsehoods.
Following the First World War, the British had great difficulty in defeating the resistance of the Iraqi people. In complete harmony with their imperial tradition, the British imported a monarchy and created a class of large landowners to support their power, thereby giving a privileged position to the Sunnis. But, despite their systematic efforts, the British failed. The Communist Party and the Baath Party were the main organized political forces that defeated the power of the “Sunni” monarchy detested by everyone, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. The violent competition between these two forces, which occupied center stage between 1958 and 1963, ended with the victory of the Baath Party, welcomed at the time by the Western powers as a relief. The Communist project carried in itself the possibility for a democratic evolution; this was not true of the Baath. The latter was nationalist and pan-Arab in principle, admired the Prussian model for constructing German unity, and recruited its members from the secular, modernist petite bourgeoisie, hostile to obscurantist expressions of religion. In power, the Baath evolved, in predictable fashion, into a dictatorship that was only half anti-imperialist, in the sense that, depending on conjunctures and circumstances, a compromise could be accepted by the two partners (Baathist power in Iraq and U.S. imperialism, dominant in the region).
This deal encouraged the megalomaniacal excesses of the leader, who imagined that Washington would accept making him its main ally in the region. Washington’s support for Baghdad (the delivery of chemical weapons is proof of this) in the absurd and criminal war against Iran from 1980 to 1989 appeared to lend credence to this calculation. Saddam never imagined Washington’s deceit, that modernization of Iraq was unacceptable to imperialism and that the decision to destroy the country had already been made. Saddam fell into the open trap when the green light was given to annex Kuwait (in fact attached in Ottoman times to the provinces that constitute Iraq, and detached by the British imperialists in order to make it one of their petroleum colonies). Iraq was then subjected to ten years of sanctions intended to bleed the country dry so as to facilitate the glorious conquest of the resulting vacuum by the armed forces of the United States.
The successive Baathist regimes, including the last one in its declining phase under Saddam’s leadership, can be accused of everything, except for having stirred up the conflict between the Sunni and Shia. Who then is responsible for the bloody clashes between the two communities? One day, we will certainly learn how the CIA (and undoubtedly Mossad) organized many of these massacres. But, beyond that, it is true that the political desert created by the Saddam regime and the example that it provided of unprincipled opportunist methods encouraged succeeding aspirants to power of all kinds to follow this path, often protected by the occupier. Sometimes, perhaps, they were even naïve to the point of believing that they could be of service to the occupying power. The aspirants in question, be they religious leaders (Shia or Sunni), supposed (para-tribal) “notables,” or notoriously corrupt businessmen exported by the United States, never had any real political standing in the country. Even those religious leaders whom the believers respected had no political influence that was acceptable to the Iraqi people. Without the void created by Saddam, no one would know how to pronounce their names. Faced with the new political world created by the imperialism of liberal globalization, will other authentically popular and national, possibly even democratic, political forces have the means to reconstruct themselves?
There was a time when the Iraqi Communist Party was the focus for organizing the best of what Iraqi society could produce. The Communist Party was established in every region of the country and dominated the world of intellectuals, often of Shia origin (I note in passing that the Shia produced revolutionaries or religious leaders above all, rarely bureaucrats or compradors!). The Communist Party was authentically popular and anti-imperialist, little inclined to demagoguery and potentially democratic. After the massacre of thousands of its best militants by the Baathist dictatorships, the collapse of the Soviet Union (for which the Iraqi Communist Party was not prepared), and the behavior of those intellectuals who believed it acceptable to return from exile as camp followers of the armed forces of the United States, is the Iraqi Communist Party henceforth fated to disappear permanently from history? Unfortunately, this is all too possible, but not inevitable, far from it.
The Kurdish question is real, in Iraq as in Iran and Turkey. But on this subject also, it should be remembered that the Western powers have always practiced, with great cynicism, double standards. The repression of Kurdish demands has never attained in Iraq and Iran the level of police, military, political, and moral violence carried out by Ankara. Neither Iran nor Iraq has ever gone so far as to deny the very existence of the Kurds. However, Turkey must be pardoned for everything as a member of NATO, an organization of democratic nations, as the media remind us. Among the eminent democrats proclaimed by the West was Portugal’s Salazar, one of NATO’s founding members, and the no less ardent admirers of democracy, the Greek colonels and Turkish generals!
Each time that the Iraqi popular fronts, formed around the Communist Party and the Baath in the best moments of its turbulent history, exercised political power, they always found an area of agreement with the principal Kurdish parties. The latter, moreover, have always been their allies.
The anti-Shia and anti-Kurd excesses of the Saddam regime were certainly real: for example, the bombing of the Basra region by Saddam’s army after its defeat in Kuwait in 1990 and the use of gas against the Kurds. These excesses came in response to the maneuvers of Washington’s armed diplomacy, which had mobilized sorcerer’s apprentices among Shia and Kurds. They remain no less criminal excesses, and stupid, moreover, since the success of Washington’s appeals was quite limited. But can anything else be expected from dictators like Saddam?
The force of the resistance to foreign occupation, unexpected under these conditions, might seem to bemiraculous. This is not the case, since the basic reality is that the Iraqi people as a whole (Arab and Kurd, Sunni and Shia) detest the occupiers and are familiar with its crimes on a daily basis (assassinations, bombings, massacres, torture). Given this a united front of national resistance (call it what you want) might even be imagined, proclaiming itself as such, posting the names, lists of organizations, and parties composing it and their common program. This, however, is not actually the case up to the present for all of the reasons described above, including the destruction of the social and political fabric caused by the Saddam dictatorship and the occupation. Regardless of the reasons, this weakness is a serious handicap, which makes it easier to divide the population, encourage opportunists, even so far as making them collaborators, and throw confusion over the objectives of the liberation.
Who will succeed in overcoming these handicaps? The communists should be well placed to do so. Already, militants who are present on the ground are separating themselves from the leaders of the Communist Party (the only ones known by the dominant media) who, confused and embarrassed, are attempting to give a semblance of legitimacy to their rallying to the collaborationist government, even pretending that they are adding to the effectiveness of armed resistance by such action! But, under the circumstances, many other political forces could make decisive initiatives in the direction of forming this front.
It remains the case that, despite its weaknesses, the Iraqi people’s resistance has already defeated (politically if not yet militarily) Washington’s project. It is precisely this that worries the Atlanticists in the European Union, faithful allies of the United States. Today, they fear a U.S. defeat, because this would strengthen the capacity of the peoples of the South to force globalized transnational capital of the imperialist triad to respect the interests of the nations and peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The Iraqi resistance has offered proposals that would make it possible to get out of the impasse and aid the United States to withdraw from the trap. It proposes: (1) formation of a transitional administrative authority set up with the support of the UN Security Council; (2) the immediate cessation of resistance actions and military and police interventions by occupying forces; (3) the departure of all foreign military and civilian authorities within six months. The details of these proposals have been published in the prestigious Arab review Al Moustaqbal al Arabi (January 2006), published in Beirut.
The absolute silence with which the European media oppose the dissemination of this message is a testament to the solidarity of the imperialist partners. Democratic and progressive European forces have the duty to dissociate themselves from this policy of the imperialist triad and support the proposals of the Iraqi resistance. To leave the Iraqi people to confront its opponent alone is not an acceptable option: it reinforces the dangerous idea that nothing can be expected from the West and its peoples, and consequently encourages the unacceptable—even criminal—excesses in the activities of some of the resistance movements.
The sooner the foreign occupation troops leave the country and the stronger the support by democratic forces in the world and in Europe for the Iraqi people, the greater will be the possibilities for a better future for this martyred people. The longer the occupation lasts, the more dismal will be the aftermath of its inevitable end.
Palestine
The Palestinian people have, since the Balfour Declaration during the First World War, been the victim of a colonization project by a foreign population, who reserve for them the fate of the “redskins,” whether one acknowledges it or pretends to be ignorant of it. This project has always had the unconditional support of the dominant imperialist power in the region (yesterday Great Britain, today the United States), because the foreign state in the region formed by that project can only be the unconditional ally, in turn, of the interventions required to force the Arab Middle East to submit to the domination of imperialist capitalism.
This is an obvious fact for all the peoples of Africa and Asia. Consequently, on both continents, they are spontaneously united on the assertion and defense of the rights of the Palestinian people. In Europe, however, the “Palestinian question” causes division, produced by the confusions kept alive by Zionist ideology, which is frequently echoed favorably.
Today more than ever, in conjunction with the implementation of the U.S. “Greater Middle East project,” the rights of the Palestinian people have been abolished. All the same, the PLO accepted the Oslo and Madrid plans and the roadmap drafted by Washington. It is Israel that has openly gone back on its agreement, and implemented an even more ambitious expansion plan. The PLO has been undermined as a result: public opinion can justly reproach it with having naively believed in the sincerity of its adversaries. The support provided by the occupation authorities to its Islamist adversary (Hamas), in the beginning, at least, and the spread of corrupt practices in the Palestinian administration (on which the fund donors—the World Bank, Europe, and the NGOs—are silent, if they are not party to it) had to lead to the Hamas electoral victory (it was predictable). This then became an additional pretext immediately put forward to justify unconditional alignment with Israeli policies no matter what they may be.
The Zionist colonial project has always been a threat, beyond Palestine, for neighboring Arab peoples. Its ambitions to annex the Egyptian Sinai and its effective annexation of the Syrian Golan are testimony to that. In the Greater Middle East project, a particular place is granted to Israel, to its regional monopoly of nuclear military equipment and its role as “indispensable partner” (under the fallacious pretext that Israel has technological expertise of which the Arab people are incapable. What an indispensable racism!).
It is not the intention here to offer analyses concerning the complex interactions between the resistance struggles against Zionist colonial expansion and the political conflicts and choices in Lebanon and Syria. The Baathist regimes in Syria have resisted, in their own way, the demands of the imperialist powers and Israel. That this resistance has also served to legitimize more questionable ambitions (control of Lebanon) is certainly not debatable. Moreover, Syria has carefully chosen the least dangerous allies in Lebanon. It is well known that the Lebanese Communist Party had organized resistance to the Israeli incursions in South Lebanon (diversion of water included). The Syrian, Lebanese, and Iranian authorities closely cooperated to destroy this dangerous base and replace it with Hezbollah. The assassination of Rafiq al-Harriri (a still unresolved case) obviously gave the imperialist powers (the United States in front, France behind) the opportunity to intervene with two objectives in mind: (1) force Damascus to align itself permanently with the vassal Arab states (Egypt and Saudi Arabia)—or, failing that, eliminate the vestiges of a deteriorated Baathist power; and (2) demolish what remains of the capability to resist Israeli incursions (by demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah). Rhetoric about democracy can be invoked within this context, if useful.
Today to accept the implementation of the Israeli project in progress is to ratify the abolition of the primary right of peoples: the right to exist. This is the supreme crime against humanity. The accusation of “anti-Semitism” addressed to those who reject this crime is only a means for appalling blackmail.
Iran
It is not our intention here to develop the analyses called for by the Islamic Revolution. Was it, as it has been proclaimed to be among supporters of political Islam as well as among foreign observers, the declaration of and point of departure for a change that ultimately must seize the entire region, perhaps even the whole Muslim world, renamed for the occasion the umma (the “nation,” which has never been)? Or was it a singular event, particularly because it was a unique combination of the interpretations of Shia Islam and the expression of Iranian nationalism?
From the perspective of what interests us here, I will only make two observations. The first is that the regime of political Islam in Iran is not by nature incompatible with integration of the country into the globalized capitalist system such as it is, since the regime is based on liberal principles for managing the economy. The second is that the Iranian nation as such is a “strong nation,” one whose major components, if not all, of both popular classes and ruling classes, do not accept the integration of their country into the globalized system in a dominated position. There is, of course, a contradiction between these two dimensions of the Iranian reality. The second one accounts for Teheran’s foreign policy tendencies, which bear witness to the will to resist foreign diktats.
It is Iranian nationalism—powerful and, in my opinion, altogether historically positive—that explains the success of the modernization of scientific, industrial, technological, and military capabilities undertaken by the Shah’s regime and the Khomeinist regime that followed. Iran is one of the few states of the South (with China, India, Korea, Brazil, and maybe a few others, but not many!) to have a national bourgeois project. Whether it be possible in the long term to achieve this project or not (my opinion is that it is not) is not the focus of our discussion here. Today this project exists and is in place.
It is precisely because Iran forms a critical mass capable of attempting to assert itself as a respected partner that the United States has decided to destroy the country by a new preventive war. As is well known, the conflict is taking place around the nuclear capabilities that Iran is developing. Why should not this country, just like others, have the right to pursue these capabilities, up to and including becoming a nuclear military power? By what right can the imperialist powers and their Israeli accomplice boast about granting themselves a monopoly over weapons of mass destruction? Can one give any credit to the discourse that argues that “democratic” nations will never make use of such weapons like “rogue states” could, when it is common knowledge that the democratic nations in question are responsible for the greatest genocides of modern times, including the one against the Jews, and that the United States has already used atomic weapons and still today rejects an absolute and general ban on their use?
Conclusion
Today, political conflicts in the region find three groups of forces opposed to one another: those that proclaim their nationalist past (but are, in reality, nothing more than the degenerate and corrupt inheritors of the bureaucracies of the national-populist era); those that proclaim political Islam; and those that are attempting to organize around “democratic” demands that are compatible with economic liberalism. The consolidation of power by any of these forces is not acceptable to a left that is attentive to the interests of the popular classes.In fact, the interests of the comprador classes affiliated with the current imperialist system are expressed through these three tendencies. U.S. diplomacy keeps all three irons in the fire, since it is focused on using the conflicts among them for its exclusive benefit. For the left to attempt to become involved in these conflicts solely through alliances with one or another of the tendencies(3) (preferring the regimes in place to avoid the worst, i.e., political Islam, or else seeking to be allied with the latter in order to get rid of the regimes) is doomed to fail. The left must assert itself by undertaking struggles in areas where it finds its natural place: defense of the economic and social interests of the popular classes, democracy, and assertion of national sovereignty, all conceptualized together as inseparable.
The region of the Greater Middle East is today central in the conflict between the imperialist leader and the peoples of the entire world. To defeat the Washington establishment’s project is the condition for providing the possibility of success for advances in any region of the world. Failing that, all these advances will remain vulnerable in the extreme. That does not mean that the importance of struggles carried out in other regions of the world, in Europe or Latin America or elsewhere, should be underestimated. It means only that they should be part of a comprehensive perspective that contributes to defeating Washington in the region that it has chosen for its first criminal strike of this century.
1 A political theory based on “collective cultural identities” as central to understanding dynamic social reality.—Ed.
2 The origin of the force of today’s political Islam in Iran does not show the same historical connection with imperialist manipulation, for reasons discussed in the next section.—Ed.
3 Tactical alliances arising from the concrete situation are another matter, e.g., the joint action of the Lebanese Communist Party with Hezbollah in resisting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006.—Ed.
One of the much talked-about young revolutionary leaders of the undivided CPI(ML) in Bengal in the seventies and now with of PCC CPI(ML), a smaller faction of the fractured party, Santosh Rana has emerged as a major critic of the CPI (Maoist) in the wake of Lalgarh movement. For him, the popular uprising of the tribal and non-tribal poor against the police repression in the Junglemahal of West Bengal bordering Jharkhand had many potential for democratizing the local and regional polity with far-reaching ramifications. But the opportunities were lost after Maoists aped the CPM in imposing their one-party rule and killing opponents irrespective of their class background. Far from considering the wanton killings now prevalent in Lalgarh region as aberrations of Maoist revolutionary schema, Rana argued that Maoist denial of democracy to rivals and friend-turned-foes in their fiefdoms has its ideo-political roots in the Soviet and Chinese version of proletarian dictatorship and peoples’ democracy. More concerned about the self-rule or autonomy for Junglemahal, he believes democratic content of revolutionary power including guarantee for multi-party polity must be central to all future revolutions including Indian revolution. Despite his differences, he is opposed to state repression in Lalgarh and wants talks between the government and Maoists as well as other representative of people there. Biswajit Roy, a journalist based in Calcutta, spoke to him to understand his arguments.
Q: The growing strength of CPI(Maoist) in a large part of the country underlines not only the failure of mainstream Left but also other Naxalite groups. It seems Maoists have established themselves as the alternative to the parliamentary and constitutional politics of all hues. How do you look at it?
SR: Since early nineties, the LPG (Liberalisation-Privatisation-Globalisation) regimes both at the Centre and the states have been spreading the tentacles of neo-liberal global economy across the country that resulted into the concentration of wealth in the hands of 27 super-rich families. This concentration of wealth has been reflected in the country’s politics also. Never before Indian parliaments have so many crorepatis as its members. With this class background of a sizable section of the MPs, it was hardly unexpected that none of the 540 MPs had opposed the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Even the mainstream Left kept mum except feebly suggesting some cosmetic changes.
This has only reduced the democratic space with the parliamentary system. As the State and its non-State collaborators are denying people their constitutional and legal rights, they are turning towards non-parliamentary paths which can deliver in more direct, immediate and localized ways. The surge of so-called Maoists should be seen in this context.
Nevertheless, I must insist that the Maoists’ success is limited to those parts of central Indian plateau which have forested hilly terrains with concentration of tribal population. The central and state governments, run by the parliamentary parties of all hues, have sold off the mining rights of huge mineral reserve of this region to multinational and Deshi corporate groups. These capitalists have been given virtual license to plunder the country’s natural resources without caring for its adverse impact on the lives of local tribal and other marginal communities. As the State-corporate nexus is trying to crush all democratic protests in the affected regions of Chattisgarh, Maharastra and Orissa, people turned to armed Maoists for protection of their traditional rights on Jal-jungle-jamin.
But Maoists could not spread much beyond Dandakaranya region. Even in their stronghold Dantewara, they couldn’t ensure the victory of the CPI candidate, Manish Kunjam. In Andhra, the home-ground for erstwhile (CPI(ML) People’s War, their model has failed and they are on the run. I admit they have made inroads in certain areas where democratic movements are weakest and state-corporate joint repression and denial of people’s rights are severest. But they failed to offer an alternative model for the entire country Consider their roles in the anti-special economic zone, anti-land grab peasant movements as well as anti-eviction struggle of the development refugees across the country. From Kalinganagar in Orissa to Raigarh in Maharastra and Nandigram in Bengal—Maoists were at the fringe.
Indian State may be considering them as the biggest threat since they have attacked the state directly. But in reality, both the State and the so-called Maoists are taking complementary roles in shriveling the democratic space.
Q. Maoists insist on their ideo-political continuity from undivided CPI(ML) led by Charu Mazumdar. But the CPM and even some of the Maxalite groups refused to accept it. What is your take on it?
SR: Differences between the original CPI(ML) and today’s CPI(Maoist) are too many. Despite our criticism of Charu Mazumdar’s line of annihilation campaign, I must point out that he never asked us for indiscriminate killings like today’s Maoists. In 1969-71, I was active in Debra-Gopiballavpur region, close to Lalgarh, now a major base of the Maoists. We killed around 120 people, most of them landlords or their henchmen. In fact, we had not killed even our class enemies till Charuda complained: Tomra dhan katcho kintu jotdar katcho na (you are engaged in forcible harvesting to ensure share-croppers and farmers share but sparing the landlords). Today, I feel most of these killings were unnecessary. But unlike the CPI(Maoist), we killed not a single tribal, Dalit and poor people in the seventies in Debra-Gopiballavpur. Even Charuda insisted not to ‘touch any tribal’, landless agri-labourers, poor and marginal peasants even if he was opposed to us. He always asked us not to carry weapons when meeting the peasants. He wanted us to kindle the poor people’s class consciousness first and depend on their initiative and the weapons they use for armed actions.
Secondly, Charuda’s focus was always on the class struggle and class issues. In the seventies, we began our work not in forest areas like Nayagram, Binpur or Lalgarh. But mainly in densely populated Debra-Gopiballavpur along the bank of Subarnarekha river where class contradictions were sharp over land and wage questions. We endeared ourselves to poor peasants and landless by focusing on land issues as well as exploitation by the money-lenders. In contrast, today’s Maoists have forgotten the land questions. They have not redistributed a single bigha land to any landless so far in Belpahari-Bashpahari-Lalgarh region now under their control. For them, land reform is over in West Bengal. The Maoist-controlled People’s Committee against Police Atrocities failed to mention the land issues in their 13-point charter of demands.
Q. But then how do you explain the Maoist success in garnering the mass support in the Lalgarh area and their increasing presence in Junglemahal of western Bengal adjoining Jharkhand? Do you subscribe to the CPM’s views that the Maoists are a gang of criminals who compelled locals to follow their dictate at the point of guns?
SR: No, I don’t agree with the CPM. Before the CPI(Maoist) was born in 2004, its two constituents, MCC and Peoples War were active in different pockets of the Junglemahal for more than a decade. They have garnered support among the tribals by taking actions against the corruption and exploitation of the Kendu leaf contractors and their nexus with the forest officials. But they didn’t opt for organising sustained movements on issues relevant to the tribals and other poor people of Junglemahal.
For example, 75 per cent of the sale proceeds of commercial forest products, mainly timber go to government exchequer under the government’s joint forest management project. Only 25 per cent of the proceeds are earmarked for the Gramrakhsa committee which comprises the villagers close to the forest. But in practice, the corrupt officials line their pockets with both the government and villagers’ money. The Jharkhand Samannaya Manch of which we are a part had offered the Maoists to join hand to launch a movement demanding the lion’s share of the proceeds for the villagers. We could have begun movement against the corruption of panchayat bodies which now handle huge amount government money earmarked for skews of tribal welfare and rural development projects. These are all popular issues that affect everyday lives of millions. The gram sabhas and gram sansads, the in-built mechanism integral to the panchayati raj are aimed at public accountability and popular participation of people at the grass-root level. They are largely dysfunctional as the corruption, nepotism, clientlism and narrow politicking by the CPM and other mainstream parties have alienated people. We could have begun with some innovative ideas to redeem these grass-root institutions by ensuring genuine popular control and more power to people after the CPM lost Lalgarh panchayat Samiti and most of the gram panchayats there. But the Maoists refused to listen to us.
Nonetheless, some of CPI(ML) groups like CPI(ML) New democracy and different factions of Jharkhand Party had participated in the mass uprising against the police atrocities in November 2008 and later joined in the Maoist-controlled PCPA.. The explosion of people’s pent-up anger against police repression triggered a genuine mass movement. The police and bureaucracy’s attitude has hardly changed since the Raj days as they refused to treat tribal and other poor in Junglemahal as human beings and fellow citizens of Independent India. Illegal detention, arbitrary arrests, merciless beating, harassment and intimidation of women and children, nocturnal raids and search operations in villages became the order of the day since the MCC and PWG had renewed their activities in the region. The repression reached its peak after the government ordered night-raids in the villages of Lalgarh block following the Maoist attempt on chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s life on 2 November on his way back from Shalboni. Maoists detonated the popular fury.
With the wounds of Nandigram still fresh, the CPM and state administration cowered before the people’s might and the government withdrew eight police camps from Lalgarh area in mid-November. It was a great victory of the people. The movement was pregnant with many possibilities as it started spreading beyond Lalgarh. There was an opportunity to mobilize the awakened masses for establishing the organs of democratic self-rule and launching movement for autonomy for Junglemahal, for that matter, entire Western Bengal. For seven months, there was no police in the area and Maoist-backed PCPA ruled without any opposition. CPM lost is base in Dharampur after Lok Sabha polls. Angry over the corruption and high-handedness of local CPM party satrap Anuj Pandey and his family, local people, assisted by Maoist squads, demolished the Pandey’s palatial house in Dharampur. Such was the people’s fury that even CPM leaders couldn’t defend Pandeys. But this emboldened Maoists so much that flaunted their assault rifles in front of TV cameras on the very day and made the PCPA irrelevant by announcing they were leading the movement. This only helped Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to abandoning his all the Left and federalist pretension and join hand with P Chidambaram in unleashing Centre-state joint security crackdown in Lalgarh, thus unleashing another phase of state terror against the people of Junglemahal.
On the other hand, CPI(Maoist) steamrolled all the other voices in the PCPA, denied democracy to any other political force which was opposed to their schema and established their one-party rule by replacing the CPM’s version of it. They have killed around 200 Since last June. Though they have not killed other Naxalites so far, they didn’t spare many of their former friends including members and supporters of different factions of Jharkhand party.
Q. It seems to be a blame game continued among former comrades. You said Maoists killed friendly Jharkhandi leaders while they accused them of being police moles and CPM’s collaborators in killing their cadres and supporters. They particularly named Jharkhand Jana Mukti Morcha-led Gana Pratirodh Committee, one of your allies, as the part of the CPM’s version of Salwa Judum campaign in Bengal. According to them, many of the Jharkhandi faction leaders have morphed into political mafias and amassed wealth and power by collaborating with anti-tribal, anti-people forces. A mere adivasi surname can’t conceal their real class loci and save them from people’s wrath.
SR: I have no major difference with them on the analysis of class character of Jharkhandi leaders in general. We have a long relation of unity and struggle with Jharkhand factions as we have participated in the struggle for separate Jharkhand in tune with the undivided CPI(ML)’s position to support the struggle for self-determination of nationalities in different parts of India. We have articulated the demand for autonomous council for tribal-dominated Western Bengal which we consider the part of Jharkhand cultural sphere, historically different from rest of Bengal. The Jharkhandi groups have presence and influence among local people long before the Maoists became active here. It is wrong to stigmatise any Jharkhand leader or group which is opposed to the Maoist schema. In fact, Maoists have not only alienated traditional tribal social organizations and their leadership, but also humiliated them and even killed some of them.
Among the tribals, Santhals were the main force behind the November uprising but the other communities like Mundas and Mahatos also joined the struggle. The Bharat Jakat Majhi Marwah, a body of the traditional tribal headmen, was in the forefront of the movement in the beginning. The Majhi Marwah had entered into negotiation with Bengal administration in the initial stage of anti-police movement and agreed to withdraw blockade after government conceded some demands and agreed not to launch any night-raids in villages. The Maoists did not agree and criticized the Marwah leaders as sell-outs. But the terms and conditions of later PCPA agreement with the government were more or less same. The Maoist-led PCPA even issued leaflet announcing the trial of Majhi Marwah head Nityananda Hembrom in a ‘people’s court’. They also ordered those who live in the areas under the influence of Majhi Marwah to join PCPA procession and beaten up those who had defied it.
We think the differences with Majhi Marwah and other Jhankhadi forces that had joined the movement could have been sorted out in democratic manner. The Maoists swear by Mao Tse Tung. Didn’t they learn from him on how to handle the non-antagonistic contradictions? The killing of Sudhir Mandi was another example of maiming a dissenting voice among the people by labeling him a class enemy. Mandi, a Jharkhand leader, was poor peasant having one acre of Dahi or infertile land. Despite being a former chairman of Belpahari panchayat samiti for five years, he used to stay in traditional kuccha house with thatched roof. He was killed by the Maoist when he had gone for selling the Sabui grass, collected by poor people for making ropes. This killing created major spit among the locals. Regarding the CPI(Maoist) complaints about our allies, JJMM had denied the charges of killing of PCPA or Maoist cadres and any relation with Gana Pratirodh Committee. Morcha agreed to our proposal for an independent enquiry into these complaints by the civil rights and democratic movement activists. The CPI(Maoist) cold-shouldered the proposal and continued killing anybody who crossed their path.
Q. In your exchange of open letters with the CPI(Maoist) leadership, the eastern bureau of its central committee has complained that your Jharkhandi allies were actually trying to enjoy a piggy-back ride on the people’s movement to fulfill their electoral ambitions while maintaining clandestine relation with the CPM. For example, Aditya Kisku, the leader of Jharkhand party faction whom you and other two CPI(ML) groups supported in Lok Sabha polls in Jhargram constituency.
SR: It was the CPI(Maoist) leader like Kishenji who in his newspaper interview (Times of India 2009) admitted having collaborated with the CPM against Trinamul-BJP combine when both sides had been engaged in a bloody turf war in Keshpur-Garbeta region in late nineties. In his bid to reprimand the CPM minister and local party satrap, Sushanta Ghosh for his ingratitude, Kisenji even boasted that he had collected 5000 rounds of cartridges from the CPM office at that time. It was another matter that their brief bonhomie with the CPM ended soon after and a new relationship began with the Trinamul. Coming to the parliamentary polls in May 2009, CPI(Maoist) hinted that they might consider support if there was a single candidate against CPM. We tried to convince Chunibala Hansda of JKP(Naren) faction for united fight but she, being the Congress ally, refused. We supported Aditya Kisku since he stood for autonomy for western Bengal for long. But CPI(Maoist) called for vote boycott and stopped voters to cast their votes in 75 booths where Kisku had a support base. On the other hand, they asked people to vote for Congress-supported Hansda in other booths. The CPM won by 2,93,000 votes, the highest victory margin in Bengal despite the Left front’s worst-ever poll debacle in the state. The Maoists can claim certain share of this achievement of the ruling party.
Q. The Maoists are describing the ruling Marxists as ‘social fascists’ and have practically declared the entire party rank and file enemies of people. They argued that CPM and the government led by it have become stooge of foreign and deshi corporate capital and an outright anti-people regime after Singur and Nandigram. Their anti-CPM virulence didn’t stop at polemics or political battles but unleashed a killing spree particularly after the Centre-state joint operation had begun. In fact, most of the victims of Maoist wrath are CPM cadres and supporters. The CPI(Maoist) politburo member Kisenji told me they corrected Mazumdar’s singular focus on annihilation of class enemies and carried the killings along with mass movement in Lalgarh and elsewhere. According to him, there is no Chinese wall between the annihilation campaign and mass movement. He denied the charge of being blood-thirsty and insisted all the death sentences were passed by the people’s court. He said he was considered soft-hearted in his party. He told me they have killed only 50 per cent of those should have been killed and on some occasion his deputies like Bikash persuaded villagers not to award capital punishment to class enemies.
SR: This indiscriminate butchering of CPM and other political party workers is totally unacceptable. Kisenji claimed that old feudalism in extinct in Bengal and the CPM rank and file now represent the new feudal class. This is ridiculous. Majority of CPM party members in Bengal belong to poor and toiling people by their class background. It is dangerous to declare them as class enemies on the basis of their political allegiance. It has no relation with Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse Tung thought but with Fascism. If this Fascist politics wins in Lalgarh, the future of democratic movement will be doomed. We strongly believe that political differences cannot be sorted out by killing the political rivals or evicting them from their home. If we want to fight against the corruption, arrogance and nepotism of the CPM leaders and panchayat functionaries, their killing can’t be the solution. We too consider today’s CPM as the stooge of forces of globalisation and main agency of police-party joint repression on people. But to call them social fascists for last 30 years will lead us to deny the achievement of limited land reforms and operation Barga to protect the rights of share-croppers as well as implementation of Panchayati raj. We have to admit the fact that first two Left front government had made some democratic reforms that Today’s Lalgarh would not have happened without operation Barga. Secondly, we must be objective. Unlike the mineral-rich areas of Chattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand, Left front government in Bengal so far didn’t acquire land or notify for it to facilitate mineral extraction by private corporations in Jhargram sub-division. The government allotted vested land to Jindal group’s steel plant in Shalboni. But the PCPA ‘s original charter of demands didn’t ask for closing up that project. They could have objected to government’s decision to allot vest land to corporate sector instead of distributing it to landless or without consulting the gram sabhas and gram sansad. They didn’t. In fact, there is protest against the project in the area. We will continue fight against CPM when it courts big capital compromising farmers and peoples' interests. But it is a gross mistake to consider the CPM as the enemy number one in the context of national politics. The party’s opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal is in tune to the Left position.
Q. It is clear that the Maoist project is completely different from you. They want to establish their own power base in their liberated zones, in the process of setting up their parallel state by forcibly replacing the existing one. So their priorities are different. Kisenji complained you have lost faith in revolution and now preach a reformed bourgeoisie democracy, a more inclusive and publicly accountable parliamentary democracy, that’s all.
SR: I have not lost my faith in armed revolution. The existing State apparatus has to be smashed and a new State has to be established. But I differ with both the CPM and CPI (Maoist), for that matter, with many other CPI(ML) groups on the fundamental questions on the nature of the revolutionary State and role of communist party it. Both the CPM and CPI(Maoist) practices made it clear that they want to establish their own one-party rule in the name of peoples' democracy or proletarian dictatorship. But we can’t accept it after the Soviet and Chinese experiences. The denial of democracy, both inside and outside the party, imposition of one-party state was main reason for the Soviet debacle. Mao was one of the greatest thinkers and revolutionaries of 20th century. Even he couldn’t succeed in safeguarding Proletarian dictatorship in China which has now degenerated into a capitalist heaven. Because, the party dictatorship was consolidated in the name of peoples democracy. There is no reason to believe anymore that rule of communist party is synonymous with the working class rule. For Marx, Paris commune was the embodiment of the proletarian dictatorship in which representatives of armed workers and other toiling people, elected on the basis of universal franchise, replaced the existing State and exercised the revolutionary power, both legislative and executive. All power to the soviets was the fundamental call of Russian revolution. I challenge Stalinism, for that matter, the third international formulations which had replaced the rule of soviets by the communist party rule that gradually wiped out all internal and external opposition. Rosa Luxemburg one of those few revolutionary thinkers who foresaw the dangers posed to the Russian revolution because of the denial of democracy.
Q. In that case, you are also questioning Lenin. It was he who theorized the seizure of power as key question of revolution and emphasized on the vanguard role of the communist party in establishing and securing the proletarian dictatorship. He was still the supreme leader of Bolsheviks when the party outflanked Mensheviks and Right social revolutionaries to ensure the passage of revolutionary decrees in the post-October second congress of soviets, rejected the results of constituent assembly poll in which Bolsheviks were minority, concentrated the power in the party’s hand and dumped the key allies, Left social revolutionaries. All power to the soviets became a façade to the Bolshevik rule. Rosa had debates with Lenin on the fundamental questions of Russian revolution.
SR: I stand by Lenin’s position on the key tasks of proletarian revolution as articulated in the State and Revolution. Seizure of power is the half of Marxism-Leninism. Power to whom, who will replace whom—that was basic question that Lenin posed. Power to Kisenji and his party instead of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his party?
Secondly, we have to understand that no revolution in our age will be successful without addressing the question of democracy. The people of Russia and China had accepted the party rule in the name of the class since bourgeoisie parliamentary democracy was rudimentary or non-existent in pre-revolutionary Russia and China. The same can’t be repeated in India where parliamentary democracy, despite its all travesties, has taken roots down to the villages. Revolutionaries have to move ahead in India not by shrinking the parliamentary democracy but by expanding it. For us, the basic question should be more and more power to the people in order to make the democracy meaningful in the lives of the millions. And, our acceptance of opposition to the ruling party, freedom of minority voices must be an integral part of vibrant and participatory democracy.
Q. The activists and intellectuals close to the Maoists have pointed out that no other people than the masses of Lalgarh should decide who would lead them and it was they who had rejected the parliamentary parties and accepted the leadership of the CPI(Maoist). The rebels have set up their own version of people’s power and executing with alternative development plans with the active participation of the people. So why grudge it?
SR: There is no democracy in the so-called peoples committees and people’s courts. Kisenji and his party are just aping the CPM and Trinamul fiefdoms. The Maoists squads dictate everything in the name of people. Any dissenters will risk beating, even killing. They are forcing people to join their rally, extracting tax from them, compelling the supporters of CPM and other political parties to give undertaking at the point of gun. They have turned the people of Lalgarh cannon-fodders. Villagers faced bullets and one of them died when Maoists clashed with para-military forces on the day of the blockade of Rajdhani express. Villagers didn’t know about their plan for the blockade and landed in the soup. Maoists had to pay Rs 3 lakhs as compensation to the deceased family after the villagers confronted them. They are in fact following not only the LTTE military line but also its political line. Prabhakaran had exterminated all other Tamil groups. In the end , he got exterminated. The Maoist experiments in alternative development are all sham. They are not interested in these school, health centre or road-buildings. These are basically ideas of some city-based sympathizers, attempted half-heartedly. The region is poor. Where from the money will come for development? Why don’t they win the panchayat polls and use the government money with people’s supervision? After all, it’s the people’s money.
Q. CPM is constantly harping on Maoist-Mamata Banerjee nexus. What is your reaction to it?
SR: Both sides tried to use each other in sheer opportunism. It happened in Nandigram earlier. For rhetoric’s sake, Maoists described Mamata as the part of big-bourgeoisie state. But in practice, they are soft to Mamata and her party as the CPM has become their common enemy. Recently Mamata thundered against the Maoists under the pressure from the Centre and the CPM. But she offered olive branch to the Maoists few days later. Kisenji’s open letters to her and sound-bites on television also revealed the blow-hot blow-cold affair.
Q. Did you ever speak to Kisenji or other CPI(Maoist) leaders to sort out the differences?
SR: I have tried to speak to him they got no response. I spoke to some other leaders of the party and got the impression that they didn’t approve all that he had done. But the party is ultimately responsible for whatever is going on.
Q. Judging by your harsh criticism of the CPI(Maoist), it appears that you and your allies are not opposed to the centre-state joint security operation or the massive crackdown planned by P Chidambaram.
SR: In no way we condone the state repression on the people of Junglemahal as well as on the Maoists as it will legitimize the designs of forces of globalization and their lackeys in India to turn India into a police state in the name of internal security and doom the democracy whatever people of India have achieved. On behalf of Jharkhand Andolan Samannaya Mancha, we have urged all sides to turn to talk table to resume democratic atmosphere in Lalgarh and adjoining areas so that Maoists, CPM as well as other forces can preach their politics without fear of police or political repression. We want all sides to focus on development of the backward region with an elected, publicly accountable autonomous council at the helm of affairs. People must have the right to recall their representatives down to the village level.
Courtsey: Seminar, March 2010 (issue on Red Resurgence)
