Today when there exists indisputable evidence about the state government’s open connivance with the armed cadres of CPI M going on the spree of loot, arson, murder and rape (including the use of people as ‘prisoners” and human shield, hostage taking) against those villagers opposing the proposed SEZ in Nandigram, the camp followers of CPI M are going on an overdrive aggressively pushing the party line that justifies the indefensible. They have taken the battle in the right earnest from Nandigram (where its armed cadres enacted the dance of death and destruction) to blogosphere, internet, and newspaper, magazines in order to provide a rationale and justification for the acts of the omission and commission by the state (see for example, The Left and its “Intellectual” Detractors by Prabhat Patnaik). Displaying a cynical indifference to the evidence and a marked hostility towards any sceptics who does not buy the CPI M official line dubbing them not only as anti-organized
left/ anti-left/ anti-CPIM but also as those who are “strengthening politically the camp of the enemies of the people” (we all know what treatment was meted out to the “enemies” of the people in Nandigram) and thus playing into the “hand of imperialism” these intellectuals have shown to be the “producers of ideas, who find a livelihood in the culture of the self-deceptions of the dominant classes”( Karl Marx, The German Ideology). Who else but the CPIM that is strengthening the “hands of imperialism” by slavishly implementing pro-rich neo-liberal policy in its most aggressive form in West Bengal . Is not the same “Left” that did not oppose the SEZ Act when it was passed in Parliament? And it is the “CPI(M) that pioneered the implementation of the WB SEZ Act in 2003, way before the Centre adopted this policy” (Kavita Krishnan, Sanhati). It has not announced the shelving of plans to create Special Economic Zones. What does CPIM declared policy that there is “no alternative
to Singur” means. In real and concrete terms it means there is no alternative to Manmohan-Montek model of development.

Prabhat Patnaik, the Marxist Pundit concentrates too much of his intellectual energy by firing salvos against individuals/ social activists belonging to various NGOs and non-party formation who in their own disparate ways strengthened the politics of the anti-SEZ struggle by providing moral/intellectual support. The tectonic shift that Nandigram has brought in its wake forced the civil society members to speak up and point out the fact that the king has no clothes. It is quite natural for CPIM and its apologists to become quite unnerved at the avalanche of criticism that has battered the “pro-people” image of CPIM in the eyes of many. Thus the high-pitched tone of the wholesale rabid attack by Prabhat Patnaik’s on all such critics that essentially serve to provide a rhetorical and ideological figleaf to the atrocities committed by CPIM. He goes on to tar all the critics with the same brush and accuses them for their complete withdrawal from the realm of political praxis.
Perhaps his memory should be refreshed that Medha Patkar, one of the leading CPIM detractors over the issue of Nandigram has been in the forefront of the various social movements taking place in the country and have impeccable democratic credentials. It is Prabhat Patnaik and his ilk who sits in elite universities and issue theoretical sermons on privatization, liberalization, Fascism, imperialism and what not. He cleverly skirts the real issue about the direction in which corporate globalisation taking place in West Bengal that is primarily responsible for the Nandigram type situation. He comes with a fantastic masterpiece that “revolt against CPI M is a revolt against politics” the attempt here is to deny any political legitimacy to its critics and also the moral/political support for the struggle against the monstrous SEZ project by the left intellectuals not aligned with the party. Do intellectuals like Sumit Sarkar, Prafull Bidwai, Tanika Sarkar, Ashok Mitra,
Arundhati Roy and others have no“political perspective”when they speak against the unspeakable atrocities committed by the state?

What is the most interesting part of the debate over the issue of Nandigram was that most of the criticism came essentially from wide variety of leftists ranging from independent Marxist, radical Gandhians to the socialists (of various hues) and the Maoists. This is perhaps the single most important reason for the consternation and bafflement for CPI M and its intellectuals. Why have so many intellectuals turned against the left with such fury, asks Prabhat Patnaik? The question itself should have led to a serious introspection and rethinking among these intellectuals but Prabhat Patnaik chose to abandon dialectical enquiry and instead of looking inwards he finds fault with the “middle class intellectuals” who not too long ago, according to Prabhat Patnaik himself, made a common cause with CPIM. Then why this sudden turnabout. Has CPIM taken such a revolutionary step in Nandigram that has unnerved the middle class intellectuals so much so that they are now betraying their
own fundamental class character and blatantly attacking a truly working class party, the CPIM. The answer to the question is self-evident.

The radical inability of these “left” intellectuals to understand the reason why so many intellectuals and supporters turn against CPI M is not surprising at all. They have failed the people of Nandigram and failed to read the writing on the wall. The Marxist Pundit Prabhat Patnaik notwithstanding his mastery over Marxist classics wonders in amazement why the disagreement with CPI M that could have taken the form of friendly criticism, articles and open letters took such a ferocious form. What he actually means here that the criticism proffered by these intellectuals could only be considered as legitimate if it stay within the parameters set by CPIM. The likes of Prabhat Patnaik know very well the ground reality was quite different in Nandigram where there was no place to observe such niceties that he hopes for. It was a war zone with battle lines clearly drawn; one side, armed CPI M’s cadres in collusion with the state while on the other hand the struggling peasantry
making all out efforts to defend their lives and livelihood. Clearly Prabhat Patnaik chose to be on the side of the predatory state when he blurs the distinction between the attackers (armed militia of CPI M) and attacked (BUPC members) and inverts the reality by making the perpetrators appears as victims and the victims as perpetrators to justify the right to retaliate (“as an act of desperation dubbed by Prabhat Patnaik”) by the CPIM cadres to recover their homes. One would like to ask him a question who has got the state power and who is the principal agency of violence? Who forced the rural poor (including the supporter’s of CPI and CPI M) into organizing the landmark anti-SEZ movement? Whose responsibility lies in dividing the rural poor into antagonistic camps anti-SEZ/Salim Group and pro-SEZ/Salim Group bogging them down into confrontational politics, all at the service of international capital? Who crossed all constitutional limits, violated rule of law and human
rights?

Today CPI M is doing a shrill campaign playing the Maoist “infiltration” card to the hilt to justify the murderous assault on the villagers of Nandigram. Since a killing a naxal (who is a naxal is another debate) is not a crime at all (it is a sacred national obligation). So CPI M cadres are quite justified in annihilating these criminals and naxal type (Sudhanwa Deshpande triumphantly claimed “faced with the Maoist, CPI M fought back” to justify state violence). CPI M MP Mohd. Salim in Lok Sabha called on all the political parties to rise above partisan consideration and face the Maoist challenge. Similar pleas were made by Sitaram Yechuri in Rajya Sabha, he bemoaned the fact that it is the CPIM cadres who are fighting the “greatest threat to national security”, the Maoist without getting the due support of the opposition parties.

Why it is so that CPI M is echoing the right reactionary propaganda against the Maoist? Why the CPI M is so eager to be identified as the most trusted ally of the Indian State. Why the concerns of the ruling elite becomes a central concerns of the CPI M. Why the barbarism and the scale of violence that anti-SEZ movement witnessed in Nandigram nowhere occurred in the country and why it holds such a great lesson for the state implementing anti-people policies? The answer is not too far to seek. CPIM is stuck in the deep mire of Social Democracy that objectively played a classic role in striking a compromise between the capital and labour but today it has lost its relevance. In order to maintain is credibility in the neo-liberal era it has to completely obey the diktats of capital or perish (remember Buddhadeb proclamation: “reform or perish”). It is therefore the reason why it has to reassure the big corporates and TNCs time and again that its neo-liberal turn will not be
forsaken (Prakash Karat forceful assertion that “industrialization cannot be achieved without the help of capitalist like Tata’s”)

If Nandigram revealed the brutal face of Social Democrats as best represented by CPI M, it also raised pertinent question in whose benefit should industrialization occur what is meant by just, equitable and inclusive development. It has also shown that CPI M’s development agenda is not something above class interest it is infact directly in the interest of capital.

CPI(M) leadership sent the late Subodh Roy, a Chittagong Armoury Raid participant and author of documents of Indian communist movement. He brought several hundred files (photocopy) but AKG Bhavan, typically in a Stalinist Beriate way shelved them and saw to it that none of them had a mention in the so-called documents of Indian communist movement (only one volume published so far; interestingly the Sixth Congress thesis (1929) of Comintern – one of the basis of formation of CPI(M) – that the Indian bourgeoisie went over to imperialism, although the same class gave a call for Quit India).

About Khruschev’s secret speech. Can anyone show that there was distortion of facts, especially after the opening of Comintern Archives for researchers? I am giving here the link for the readers -http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khrushchev-secret1.html

Lastly, Paul Sweezy, the MR group of Marxists who are genuinely trying to defend Msrx and Marxism by adhering to original texts were all opposed to Stalin and were drawn to Marxism after reading Leon Trotsky’s treatise on October Revolution.

How many times was Stalin referred to in Ten Days That Shook the World? Twice or thrice in contrast to Trotsky, Chicherin, Lunacharsky etc numerously? Small wonder, the book was banned after Stalin consolidated his power.

Stalin was undoubtedly a great revolutionary but a killer of Leninism, leave alone Marxism.

But I think I said I would have ‘preferred’. Yes, the word is hyperbolic, but I didn’t use it. In the dictionary-sense of the word(the OED uses the term as ‘the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation,’ so) you’re right about the usage: Nandigram was not a genocide. Genocides don’t abound in the everyday world. But the Nandigram killings were deliberate. The number of dead is yet to be ascertained. It has shocked us beyond our senses. Viewing it close at hand somewhat amplifies the reactions, forgive me for that. I will also stop using the word ‘fascist’ as an adjective from now on, unless speaking specifically about European WW2 history. Forgive me again, I’m too wary of definitions. Shouldn’t have said that, honest.

(I would have preferred using the word ‘genocide’

Are you sure Nandigram was a genocide? People have a habit of calling every massacre perpetrated by their opponents as “genocide”. Nandigram was not a genocide.
I wish people stopped indulging in Hyperbole. Genocide has a specific meaning.Not every mass murder and theft of resources like the one in Nandigram or singur can be called genocide.If Nandigram is a genocide then genocides happen every single day in this planet in some part of world.I am sure even you don’t go so far as to say Genocides happen every single day.
The Truth about Nandigram is shocking enough. People don’t need to add any masala and hype it.

This is not about George Lukacs, the Star Wars, Nietzche,Palmiro Toggliatti, or the exact minutiae of the axe that killed Trotsky.

This is not about Yugoslavia, the MIT campus, JNU, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and Rome, even if AN’s metaphors are a bit acerbic. :|

The issue at hand is the massacres at Nandigram(I would have preferred using the word ‘genocide’ but then I’m rather afraid of the types of Mamata Banerjee or those who exhibit their historical knowledges in lengthy dialectical footnotes) and PP’s reaction to the massacres.

What AN tries to emphasize here— and I don’t think there’s any need for his justification of purpose— is the role of PP in choosing the prescribed version put up by the CPIM, instead of ‘questioning everything’in the way Marxists are expected to do, and let’s say, for the sake of the example and without indulging in comparisons, like Praful Bidwai did or Jayati Ghosh didn’t.

The best lessons that come out of official Indian Marxist practice is historical quotations drawn by quickgun Murugans faster than speeding bullets— the worst is blindness to see expressions as they stand.

Do read in context.

And whether you like it not, ‘Stalin’ is a true metaphor for the evil that lurks in the grand word ‘democratic centralism’. A historical footnote, for I used to be in your schools, bro, :mrgreen: and can’t help showing off, even if it’s totally irrelevant to the context: Did you know that the 17th Congress of the CPSU(Bolshevik) was substantially opposed to Stalin? Between 1934 and 1939, four to five million party members and officials were arrested on political grounds, four to five hundred thousand of them were executed without trial, and the next party Congress (the 18th) which met in 1939, contained a bare 37 survivors of the 1827 delegates who had been present at the 17th in 1934.

But then, this is not about the history of communism, either.’Stalinism’ here is simply a metaphor for ineffective but brutal thought control.

In context, this post reads as a partial rebuttal of PP’s statement. But sometimes events speak stronger than a thousand words, and PP’s rebuttal is in the corpses of the farmers he refused to see.

AN’s metaphors may be stretched, perhaps even wrong (who knows what is right after all?), but do read those metaphors in context. Normal people usually do that. There are only two exceptions: geniuses and idiots.

Yugoslavia is invoked in the context of Nandigram to berate Prof Patnaik.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.htm is a comprehensive review of the lies perpetrated in Yugoslavia to malign the Milosevic regime and to eliminate every trace of the multi-ethnic/federal republic of Yugoslavia.

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchive/958euro.htm is from the People’s Democracy of 1998.

The similarities in both is uncanny.

Maybe someone would say the same 10 years later about Nandigram too.. as to how the likes of Aditya Nigam found it cosy to associate with the lies perpetrated by Smt. Mamta Bannerjee to berate the Left.

http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/news_detail.php?news_id=436&sessionid=

Comments Abhay Kumar

Dec 14th, 2007 at 5:22 am

Dear Adityaji,

I have some observations regarding your response to Prabhat Patnaik’s article.

Firstly, your assertions rather than refuting Prof. Patnaik’s reinforces them. You are using the same old cliche of “stalinism” against him and the CPM which was used by anti-Communist forces in former USSR and Eastern Europe to subvert the socialist regimes there. The point today is not whether those socialist regimes were democratic – they were obviously not. however, can what has replaced those regimes be called “Left” or more democratic? are people better off in those countries today? Hasn’t the collapse of USSR and the Socialist bloc helped imperialism? but one finds your anger only against those socialist regimes; neither against the neoliberal regimes that supplanted them nor against imperialism. This shows the problem with your politics. In fact Prof. Patnaik takes a more charitable view when he says you lack politics. I think you have a politics which ultimately serve the cause of the Right and Imperialism, just like the confused post-modern intellectuals of the West.

Secondly, Prof. Patnaik has explicitly stated that the CPM-led government in bengal has committed mistakes. One does not find any recognition on your part, let alone any critique of the wrong-doings of the anti-CPM opposition in Bengal, which includes the far-Right too. Are you saying that there was no violence against the CPM in Nandigram. Then please say so explicitly and provide evidence for your assertion. Or else please explain why you are silent on the violence by the opposition and criticizing the CPM of being “stalinist”? Or else you would not even qualify for being the “messianic moralist” that Prof.Patnaik has alleged.

Finally, you seem to have several personal reasons to oppose the CPM – it seems they have never given you and your friends sufficient importance while conducting joint programs. It is surely their mistake to have ignored an intellectual of your stature. However, if you represent a more enlightened “Left” than the CPM or Prof. Patnaik, why don’t you come up with a better Left alternative so that we can all join you. If you can’t form a party yourself, why don’t you suggest the name of one which we can join. If you can’t suggest any alternative to the CPM, then you are being totally irresponsible. I may have one hundred and one problems with the CPM but i trust them on fighting imperialism and the nuclear deal. However much i may fall in love with your ideas, what is its worth if it does not make any difference to the fight against imperialism?

The difference between you and Prof. Patnaik are many. The most imporant one, however, is that Prof. Patnaik is a Party intellectual – like George Lukacs (as you have yourself noted) – according to Gramsci they are the best of intellectuals. They have the courage to swim against the tide and stand for truth, reason and justice. Therefore, people like me will continue to listen to him with starry eyes. As far as you are concerned, your voices would at best be appropriated by the Right to attack the Left. Worse, you will continue to remain a misnomer. Regard,

Abhay

________________________________________________________________________

Comment by Indranil Chowdhury Dec 14th, 2007 at 6:06 am

Prabhat Patnaik (PP) is indeed an honourable man. As a former student of his at JNU I am convinced about that. When “intellectuals” like Aditya Nigam have conveniently changed their colours and joined the anti-CPI (M) bandwagon, Prabhat Patnaik continues to stand by his convictions.

Aditya Nigam has invoked Ashok Mitra’s (AM) article to criticize PP. I have read both versions of AM’s article. It is indeed striking that when AM is talking about PP being humiliated by the CPI (M) led Government in Bengal, PP has actually come out in their defence. AM has talked about Jyoti Basu today resembling the incarcerated Shah Jahan. However, he has not realized that he is looking a bit like Mir Zafar himself. He has held the LF Government responsible for the violence not only on BUPC supporters but also for the forced eviction of the CPI (M) supporters! He did not spare a single word of criticism against those who carried out atrocities against poor CPI (M) supporters. AM has also said that the main reason why the CPI (M) has degenerated in West Bengal is because most Party members there now belong to the post-1977 era. Does he expect the CPI (M) to comprise of old people only? This meaningless argument itself shows AM’s disturbed state of mind which makes it impossible for him to take a rational position. Perhaps he has become too cynical.

Prabhat Patnaik on the other hand had the courage to stand by the CPI (M), despite the West Bengal Chief Minister publicly disagreeing with him (in a television interview). This not only shows his high personal integrity but also the fact that neither he nor the CPI (M) are so-called stalinist parties. Differences are respected and yet debates do not degenerate into personal squabbles. Aditya Nigam’s of the world though continue to conjure the ghost of stalinism within CPI (M). I think there are several problems with Stalin. But after all Stalin was a great leader of the Communist international. The USSR defeated the german fascists in WWII under his leadership. If the CPI (M) continues to uphold that legacy of Stalin, what is the harm. Just because Mao committed the blunder of cultural revolution does not mean he had no contribution – afterall he led the revolution in China. We have to take a balanced view about these Communist leaders and not use words like stalinism or maoism as abuses. But a communist party of the 21st century cannot be like the old ones – there has to be greater democratic space for debate, discussion and dissent. I think that the CPI (M) has moved in that direction and continues to do so.

The Cuban Communists or Chavez (or all those who Aditya Nigam refers to as non-stalinist left) also recognize the CPI (M) as the biggest and most consequential contingent of the Left in India. If Mr. Aditya Nigam is drawing his inspiration from them, then he should explain why they consider CPI (M) to be their ally. The fact remains that the Left in India cannot be strengthened by weakening the CPI (M). It is this truth which Prabhat Patnaik has upheld and which Aditya Nigam, who neither has any serious contribution nor any stakes in the Left movement in the country, refuses to understand.

Aditya Nigam has invoked Ashok Mitra’s (AM) article to criticize PP. I have read both versions of AM’s article. It is indeed striking that when AM is talking about PP being humiliated by the CPI (M) led Government in Bengal, PP has actually come out in their defence. AM has talked about Jyoti Basu today resembling the incarcerated Shah Jahan. However, he has not realized that he is looking a bit like Mir Zafar himself. He has held the LF Government responsible for the violence not only on BUPC supporters but also for the forced eviction of the CPI (M) supporters! He did not spare a single word of criticism against those who carried out atrocities against poor CPI (M) supporters. AM has also said that the main reason why the CPI (M) has degenerated in West Bengal is because most Party members there now belong to the post-1977 era. Does he expect the CPI (M) to comprise of old people only? This meaningless argument itself shows AM’s disturbed state of mind which makes it impossible for him to take a rational position. Perhaps he has become too cynical.

Prabhat Patnaik on the other hand had the courage to stand by the CPI (M), despite the West Bengal Chief Minister publicly disagreeing with him (in a television interview). This not only shows his high personal integrity but also the fact that neither he nor the CPI (M) are so-called stalinist parties. Differences are respected and yet debates do not degenerate into personal squabbles. Aditya Nigam’s of the world though continue to conjure the ghost of stalinism within CPI (M).

I think there are several problems with Stalin. But after all Stalin was a great leader of the Communist international. The USSR defeated the german fascists in WWII under his leadership. If the CPI (M) continues to uphold that legacy of Stalin, what is the harm. Just because Mao committed the blunder of cultural revolution does not mean he had no contribution – afterall he led the revolution in China. We have to take a balanced view about these Communist leaders and not use words like stalinism or maoism as abuses. But a communist party of the 21st century cannot be like the old ones – there has to be greater democratic space for debate, discussion and dissent. I think that the CPI (M) has moved in that direction and continues to do so.

The Cuban Communists or Chavez (or all those who Aditya Nigam refers to as non-stalinist left) also recognize the CPI (M) as the biggest and most consequential contingent of the Left in India. If Mr. Aditya Nigam is drawing his inspiration from them, then he should explain why they consider CPI (M) to be their ally. The fact remains that the Left in India cannot be strengthened by weakening the CPI (M). It is this truth which Prabhat Patnaik has upheld and which Aditya Nigam, who neither have any serious contribution nor any stakes in the Left movement in the country, refuses to understand.

You can read this article by Diana Johnstone.

http://counterpunch.org/johnstone12122007.html

The mythology about Demon Milosevic has penetrated even the Anti Imperialist Left. This is quite tragic. The claim that Milosevic is responsible for all or even the most of the Yugoslav Tragedy is pure Mythology. He was definitely a crooked politico in many respects, just like many third world Politicos. But not the Genocidal Monster he is accused of.
The Balkan wars became a matter of religious fanaticism among Western intellectuals, across the spectrum. Any questioning of the Party Line elicits utter hysteria.