மே 2019 மார்க்சிஸ்ட் இதழில் …

வரலாற்று சிறப்பு மிக்க தொழிலாளர் தினத்தை உலகமே உற்சாகமாக கொண்டாடியது. இந்த கொண்டாட்டங்கள் உலகம் முழுவதும் உள்ள தொழி லாளர்களின் போராட்டக்கனலின் வெளிப்பாடாகவே எழுந்து நிற்கிறது. ஏகாதிபத் தியங்களின் லாப வெறி உழைக்கும் மக்களை மேலும், மேலும் சுரண்டிக் கொழுக் கிறது. எப்போதும்போல் தொழிலாளி வர்க்கமும் அதற்கேற்ற வகையில் எதிர்த்து நிற்கிறது. பல நாடுகளில் வலதுசாரிகள் ஆட்சி அதிகாரத்தை பிடித்த அதே நிலை இந்தியாவிலும் ஏற்பட்டது. இந்திய தொழிலாளி வர்க்கமும் தனது நேச அணியான விவசாயிகளை தன்னோடு இணைத்துக்கொண்டு  தற்போது வலுவாக களம் காண்கிறது. இந்த வளர்ச்சிப்போக்குகளை மிக ஆழமாகவும், எளிமையாகவும் தோழர் சிந்துவின்  “ஏகாதிபத்திய தாக்குதலும், உழைக்கும் வர்க்க எதிர்ப்பும்” என்ற கட்டுரை விளக்கு கிறது. தோழர் ஜி.பாலச்சந்திரன் அதை மிக சிறப்பாக தமிழில் வழங்கியுள்ளார்.

கடந்த இதழில் வெனிசுவேலாவை மையப்படுத்தி உலக நிகழ்வுகளிலும் மற்ற நாடுகளிலும் ஏகாதிபத்தியத்தின் தலையீட்டை விளக்கி பேரா. பிரபாத் பட்நாயக் எழுதிய கட்டுரையை வாசகர்கள் படித்திருப்பீர்கள். அதன் தொடர்ச்சியாக வெனிசுவேலாவில்  ஏகாதிபத்தியத்தின் தலையீட்டை “மீண்டும் வருமா வெனிசு வேலா?” என்கிற கட்டுரையில் மிக விரிவாக எழுதியுள்ளார் இ.பா.சிந்தன்.

பிப்ரவரி மற்றும் மார்ச் மாத இதழ்களில் முற்பட்ட சாதிகளில் உள்ள பொருளாதார ரீதியாக பின்தங்கியவர்களுக்கு பத்து சதவீத இடஒதுக்கீடு குறித்தும், பொதுவாக இடஒதுக்கீடு குறித்த மார்க்சிஸ்ட் கம்யூனிஸ்டு கட்சியின் நிலைபாடு குறித்தும் தோழர் கே. பாலகிருஷ்ணன் எழுதி வந்த “இட ஒதுக்கீடு சிபிஐ (எம்) அணுகுமுறை” என்கிற கட்டுரையின் இறுதிப் பகுதி இந்த இதழில் வெளியாகிறது.

மோடி ஆட்சியில் எல்லா துறைகளும் மிக மோசமான பாதிப்பை அடைந்துள்ளன. குறிப்பாக பணமதிப்பு நீக்கம், ஜி.எஸ்.டி உள்ளிட்ட நடவடிக்கைகளால் வேலைவாய்ப் பென்பது இக்காலத்தில் மிக மோசமான நிலைக்கு சென்றுள்ளது. கடந்த 45 ஆண்டுகள் இல்லாத வகையில் வேலைவாய்ப்பின்மை உயர்ந்துள்ளது. சரியான இடைவெளியில் வேலை பற்றிய கணக்கெடுப்புகளும் நடைபெற்று வந்தன. அந்த கணக்கெடுப்புகள் மோடியின் ஆட்சி காலத்தில் வேலைவாய்ப்பில் ஏற்பட்டுள்ள மோசமான பாதிப்புகளை தெளிவாக எடுத்துக் காட்டுகிறது. கணக்கெடுப்பு முறைகளையும் அது வெளிக்கொணரும் அம்சங்களையும் விளக்கி தோழர் வெங்கடேஷ் ஆத்ரேயா அவர்களின் “இந்தியாவில் வேலையின்மை நெருக்கடி” என்ற கட்டுரை விளக்குகிறது.

தொடர்ந்து வெளியாகும் மார்க்சிய சொல்லகராதியின் நான்காம் பகுதியில் இயக்கவியலின் இரண்டாம் விதி விளக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

எப்போதும் போல் வாசகர்களும், வாசகர் வட்ட பொறுப்பாளர்களும் இதழ் பற்றிய கருத்துக்களை ஆசிரியர் குழுவிற்கு அனுப்ப வேண்டுகிறோம். மார்க்சிஸ்ட் இதழின் சந்தாவை அதிகரித்திட கூடுதல் கவனம் செலுத்துமாறும் கேட்டுக் கொள்கிறோம்.

 – ஆசிரியர் குழு

Science, Society and Philosophy in India

EMS Namboodiripad

It is a great pleasure and privilege for me to associate myself with a programme arranged in memory of the late Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya:

Debirprasad was a pioneer- I would rather put it, the pioneer-in the application of Marxist theory to the problems of Indian philosophy. He had before him another pioneer of Marxist theory in India, D D Kosambi. Kosambi and Chattopadhyaya together made a big change in theoretical thinking. This was followed by a host of historians like Romila Thapar, R S Sharma and several others.

I am not a specialist in any of these disciplines. I am a political activist. But being a political activist of the Indian working class, I had to acquaint myself with all the disciplines-philosophy, Political Economy, History, Political Science, Aesthetics, etc. I have learnt a lot from my dabbing into the academic subjects and it is from this point of view that I have to offer a few remarks.

I would not confine myself to the subject which has been thrown open to discussion in this seminar, philosophy and Science in India. My rather would be Science, Society and Philosophy in India from ancient days to July 10th, 1994.

This is the scope of my talk. Why? As I told you. I am not an academic scholar but a  political activist. I believe in the Marxist proposition that, while philosophers through the ages have interpreted the universe in various ways, the point is to change it.

Marx was a towering intellectual who made big contributions to the Science of human progress, but he was also a practical revolutionary activist. He through his theoretical writings tried to understand the world, through his practical activities, he was trying to change the world.

I do not claim that quality of Marx in relation to theoretical writings. My understanding of theory is secondhanded. I have not made any original study. On questions of Indian Philosophy, I have learnt from Kosambi, Debiprasad, etc. on Indian history, I have learnt from Marxist Scholars beginning with Kosambi, Romila Thapar, R S Sharma and others. On political Economy, I have learnt from a host of Indian Marxist scholars.

But I have learnt mostly from my practice and this practice raises before me, and should raise before you, the question of what is the present and future of India?

I would not go today into current political but I would certainly raise the question which Pandit Nehru raised once: “Whither India?’ where is India going?

He raised that question in the early 30’s. I am repeating the question in 1994. raising that question now, I see before me several perspectives of which one is what is called the revivalist.

Revivalism means India of the Upanishads, India of the Vedas, that is the real India. After that, it is said, came Islamic India, Christian (British) India and Marxist India. All these are alien theories. Only the Hindu way of life is Indian.

This is a theory which dies not stand at the level of theory alone but is applied in practice. Practice which was seen earlier in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and recently in the demolition of Babri Masjid, in the threatened demolition of the mosques in Mathura and Varanasi and the mosques in 3000 other places. This according to me is anti-Indian. Those who propound this theory claim that they are propounding Indian theory. My contention is that this is an anti-Indian theory. Why?

India has a composite society, composite culture. This land being inhabited by a host of religious communities, castes in Hindu society, tribes, linguistic, cultural groups etc, it is a land of unity in diversity. Now to raise one of these factors to the pedestal and say that this is India, is according to me anti-Indian. This is the conclusion that I have arrived at after 60 years of active political life as a left politician and its is from this point of mine that I look at problems of Indian philosophy.

When I do that, I repeat the question raised by Debiprasad, did India have a tradition of materialism in ancient days? Until Debiprasad wrote his famous book Lakayata, the impression prevailing among us, created by foreign scholars and Indian scholars as well, was that, while Europe always has been materialistic, India has ever been idealist. This theory was demolished by that single work of Debiprasad’s Lokayata.

When I read that book nearly 40 years ago, a light was thrown into my thinking. India too had a materialist past. Like Greece, Rome and other European civilisations, Indian Society too in ancient days witnessed the struggles between idealism and materialism. This is substantiated not only by Lakayata but by a number of other works by Debiprasad. What is living and what is Dead in Indian philosophy is an expanded and updated edition of Lokayata, going into details on materialism in ancient India and its class roots.

Where does materialism arise from/where does idealism arise from? Where does the struggle between them go on? Why was materialism defeated in ancient and medieval India? One has to trace all this to class struggle.

Debiprasad points out that materialism was created by the working people who were working on nature and therefore had intimate understanding of the various phenomena of nature. So their world outlook is materialistic.

On the other hand, there is a small minority which, in ancient Greece were the slave-owners, but in India it is called the Dwijas. The Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaisyas are the Dwijas. They are the exploiting classes. They have no living connection with the phenomena of nature. So their world outlook is speculative. It is out of this that philosophical idealism arose.

As for the common people, not only the people who work with their hands but also with their intellect, they are intimately connected with nature, therefore, they developed materialism. And the two come to conflict with each other.

Just as the owners and slaves came in confrontation with each other in ancient Greece and Rome, so did the Dwijas and Shudras in India. Among the Dwijas themselves, in the beginning it was the Kshatriyas who dominated, then it was the Brahmana. In any case there is this Dwija domination over society.

 

And it is due to this Dwija domination that materialism was defeated and idealism flourished that materialism was defeated and idealism flourished in India. It was thanks to this dwija domination, or rather resistance to it, that materialism arose. This in a detailed manner is explained by Debiprasad in his two major works Lokayata and What is living and what is dead in Indian Philosophy and further elaborated in a number of other works, like Science and Society in ancient India.

So the struggle between materialism and idealism existed in ancient India as much as in ancient Greece. But the course of history was different in the two countries. In Greece the struggle between the two classes, the struggle between the two ideologies, ended in the revolutionary replacement of the old slave society by feudal society and this feudal society in its turn was replaced by capitalist society. In other words, the revolt of the slaves against the owners, followed by the anti-feudal revolts, were the characteristic features of Europe.

In Indian on the other hand, these revolts or revolutions did not take place. But, in the very first struggle between the owning classes and the working classes, between the Dwija and Shudras, the latter were defeated. The working people were defeated by the exploiting classes. With the defeat of the working people and the victory of the owning classes, whatever existed of materialism was also defeated. Idealism became dominate. What is the evidence?

There is no evidence of actual armed clashed between the owning and the working classes and the defeat of the latter. But there is evidence of ideological conflict between the two classes and that evidence is the India-wide spread of Budhism and Jainism. Budhism and Jainism were manifestations of the revolt of the Shudras against the domination of the Dwijas. For a time Budhism appeared to be prevailing over Brahminism. But, it was defeated. Budhism, which spread to several other countries like China, and other countries was defeated in the land of its birth.

Because the owning classes, the Dwijas, were in control of what Debiprasad called the Lordly power and holy power, i.e. the Kshatrias and the Brahmins who together were able, at the ideological level, to demolish Budhism and other forms of materialism. It is not only Budhism and Jainism but Samkhya, Charvaka, all these were the philosophies and ideologies of materialism, the philosophies and ideologies of the working classes. They were defeated, annihilated and even the works of materialism are not available now.

As a matter of fact, if you want today to have any inkling of the Charvaka and other systems of materialist philosophy, you can get it only through the works of their opponents. Sankara, for instance, quote a number of passages from the Lakayata and other works of the materialists. For what? For demolishing them. What is called Purvapaksha. He quoted extensively from the writings of the materialists, but these writings themselves are not available. Extracts of what he considered necessary are quoted and then demolished. Purvapaksha is followed by Sidhantha Paksha. Purvapaksha is first given and then demolished. That demolition is called Sidhantha Paksha. Purvapaksha is given only to assert the Sidhanthapaksha. In this form, many of the writings of the Lokayatas, the Charvakas and other materialists are available now.

Probably, Budhist classics are available in other countries. I am told that, in Tibet, there is a big collection of Budhist writings. Nobody has been able to make a study of them. It is in any case a fact that not only at the level of theory but at the level of social practice, Budhism was a major movement. It spread throughout the country. But it was defeated in ideological battle by a host of idealist philosophers among whom the most towering individual was Sankara. With Sankara’s demolition of Budhism, the materialism that existed in Ancient Indian came to an end.

 

As the historian of ancient Indian science P C Ray, put it, Sankara’s victory over budhism was the beginning of intellectual stagnation in the country. Till then, there was vigorous struggle between materialism and idealism which ended in the victory of idealism over Budhism. This demolition of materialism meant an end to all original thinking, end to the battle of ideas. That was why, from around 8-9the century A D Indian Society, Indian science, Indian Arts, Indian Literature—all these started stagnating.

Take the case of literature. Instead of the old brilliant works of Kalidasa and other men of classical literature in Sanskrit, literature became so formalised that there is not life in it. The defeat of budhism at the hands of idealism perfected in Sankara’s philosophy thus meant that the intellectual life of the country became stagnant.

The consequences of this stagnation of the intellectual life of the society, which arose from the victory of idealism over materialism, was that group rivalries among the people, among the ruling classes, became increasingly strong. And, as Marx put it in his well-known articles on India, everybody was against everybody else and in came the Briton.” As Marx pointed out, the intellectual stagnation in society, leading to socio-political disintegration of the country, led to the coming of the foreign ruler.

But, the foreign rule has two sides. As Marx put it, it had two roles to perform. One was destructive, destroying the old, destroying the caste society destroying of caste society. That they did to a large extent. They however had before them a constructive role as well, i.e., building a new society. That role they did not play. That is why Marx said, that the tragedy of Indian people is that they lost their old world without getting a new one.

But, although we did not get a new world, Marx himself says the seeds of the new world were being sown. These are the modern democratic movement, the freedom movement, and then out of the freedom movement arose a new philosophy, a lot of political activisation. Rammohan Roy in Bengal, Phule, in Maharashtra Sree Narayan Guru in Kerala and lot of others became the new intellectuals, who threw new ideas amongst the people.

It is out of this that an Indian political economy arose. As early as in the 1860s, a group of intellectuals arose, Dada Bhai Nauoroji,Ranade and so on. They were the pioneers of political economy for India. They were also the pioneers of the modern democratic political movement. These are the manifestations of the development of what Marx considered the seeds of the new society being sown on Indian soil after the British domination became a reality. It is because of this that the modern movement arose.

Out of this, new socio-economic and political philosophers came into being. Gopal Krisna Gokhale, Tilak, Gandhi etc. They were the originators of the new philosophy, a carrying forward of the ancient Indian philosophy to modern times. There was, for instance, the towering intellectual vivekananda, who though a Swami Formally, was  a political revolutionary. He said that the ages of the Brahmin, the Kshatriya and the Vaishya are over. Now the age of the Shudras is opening. The age of Shudras means, in modern Marxian language, proletarian rule. I do not know, whether the Swami himself was conscious of that but he could see that something new is coming. That new is the coming up of Shudras. This was the outlook with which Phule, Sree Narayana Guru developed their militant socio-cultural movement. They however had no living contact with the political freedom movement. Tilak and Gandhi together, of course along with several others, developed the new philosophy, which gives expression to the peoples’ aspirations for the creation of new society. The aspiration of the Daridra Narayan.

By the early 1920s’ the Indian people had become a political force. The new society however had been developing even before that when Lok Manya Tilak was arrested and the Bombay working class went on a political general strike. An incident which was hailed by Lenin as the coming of age of the working class, a new India. The earlier movement had other classes, other sections of the people in the freedom movement but the general strike of the Bombay working class in protest against the arrest of Lok Manya Tilak brought the Indian working class into the freedom battle.

That however was confined to one city, Bombay, at the time, it was confined to one issue-the arrest and incarceration of Lok Manya Tilak. But a decade later, the working class in India had brought into existence its first All-India organisation. All India Trade Union congress and together with it, Communist groups in several parts of the country. Dange in Bombay, Muzaffar Ahmad in Calcutta, Singaravelu Chettiyar in Madras, these were the pioneers of communism in India. The communist groups organised by these pioneers together with the formation of All-India Trade Union Congress, showed that the working class had come on its own. Of course as part of the freedom movement, but independent of the middle class, the working class, though still under the bourgeois leadership, thus came as a class in itself and for itself.

From this time onwards, a new philosophy started developing. A new philosophy in developing which the predecessors of my generation played a big role for a decade, after which we joined them. And I am proud to declare that, during the last sixty years, my generation added not only to the Practise but also to the theory of Marxist philosophy, political Economy, Sociology political science Aesthetic etc. this is putting into practice of the Marxist concept of changing the world along with understanding it. This is how we can develop.

So I would look society, science and philosophy in India as a continuity. The continuity often breaks, but there is a continuity. That continuity is that the Indian People are coming up on their own. That is why I said we have to come to 1994 and have a perspective of the 21st century.

In this we see that the India people have developed in an all-sided manner. They have developed their own philosophy. That philosophy is not Hindu philosophy, it includes Hindu philosophy nut it includes Muslims philosophy, it includes Christian philosophy, it includes finally Marxian philosophy. All these are parts of the Indian philosophy. This is the view we have been propagating against the view of the Hindutva fraternity, according to which it is only Hindu philosophy, Vedic philosophy, that is Indian. Now they have started Vedic mathematics also. Everything is sought to be taken back to Vedic times.

We certainly respect Vedic times, we are proud of our past Vedic culture. But we are also conscious of the fact that Vedic culture had serious limitations. That was why India which was equal to or even ahead of Europe in ancient times lags behind in modern times.

One of the limitations of Vedic culture I can give from my own personal experience. I had to spend six years of my boyhood in learning Rigveda. Learning in fact is not the proper word for it. I did not understand what it means. I was made to repeat word by word. That is why I said repeatedly that those six years when I was made to repeat the mantras of Rigveda by heart, were six wasted years in my life. These are parts of the Vedic tradition which have to be broken.

Rigveda is of course a part of the treasury of our cultural heritage. I am only sorry that I was not taught, when learning it by heart, what Rigveda means, what it conveyed? Only recently a friend of mine brought out an eight-volume work of annotations in Malayalam of Rigveda, so these treasures, we cherish as part of our culture. But part of our culture is also the fact that Vedic texts have been made into a dogma. Vedic texts are not used to enlighten the minds of the people but to enslave them. This tradition has to be broken. When this tradition is broken, we will have to develop the Marxist philosophy, new political economy and so on.

This is the message that Debi Prasad conveys in his works. that is why his works are treasures not only for the Marxists, but for all those who are interested in the study of our culture. So it is a pleasure and privilege for me to associate myself with this seminar. I have tried to profit from the study of his works and I have tried to use them as he himself used them in his life time-to change the Indian Society, to fight all that is reactionary, all that is outdated in the so-called Hindutva culture. This is the substance of what I have to convey to you.

    

   


First Published: The Marxist,  Vol. XII, No. 1, Issue: Jan – March 1995

கியூபாவிற்கான புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம்

கியூபாவின் சோசலிச அமைப்பு மிகவும் உயர்வானது. இக்கட்டுரையில் ஒரு புதிய அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டத்தை உயர்ந்த ஜனநாயகப் பண்புடன் மக்கள் கருத்தறிந்து கொண்டுவந்துள்ளார்கள் என்பது விளக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. மேலும்,  அந்த புதிய சட்டம் மக்களின் அனைத்துப் பிரிவினருக்கான, சமத்துவத்தை பாதுகாக்கும் சட்டமாகவும் இருப்பது விளக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. முதலாளித்துவத்திற்கு மாற்று தேவை. அது சோசலிசமே என்பதை இக்கட்டுரை மீண்டும் தெளிவுபடுத்துகிறது. சோவியத் ரஷ்ய புரட்சி உலகப் புரட்சிகளின் முன்னோடியாகும். நவம்பர் புரட்சி மாதத்தில், கியூப நவீன மாற்றங்களை அறிந்துகொள்வோம்.

—————————

கியூபாவிற்கான புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட நகல் தீர்மானம், கியூப நாட்டின் தேசிய மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தினால் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டு,  தற்போது மக்களின் முன்பு விவாதத்திற்காகவும், மக்கள் கருத்துகளை பெறுவதற்காகவும் சமர்ப்பிக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த பணிக்கென்று ஆகஸ்ட் 13 முதல் நவம்பர் 15 வரை ஒரு லட்சத்து முப்பத்து ஐயாயிரம் (1,35,000) கூட்டங்களை நடத்த கியூப அரசு முடிவு செய்தது.  மக்கள் கூடும் இடங்கள், பணியிடங்கள், பள்ளிகள், சமுதாயக் கூடங்கள் என்று நாடு தழுவிய அளவில்   கூட்டங்களை நடத்தத் தீர்மானித்தது, நடத்தியது.  இந்த கூட்டங்களை நடத்துவதற்கென்று இரு நபர்கள் கொண்ட 7600 குழுக்கள்   பயிற்சியளிக்கப்பட்டு உருவாக்கப்பட்டன.  அதாவது கிட்டத்தட்ட 15000 பேர் இந்த கூட்டங்களை நடத்துவதற்கும், மக்களின் கருத்துக்களை கேட்டு பதிவு செய்வதற்கும் பயிற்சியளிக்கப்பட்டனர்.  பத்து லட்சத்திற்கும் அதிகமான அரசியலமைப்பு நகல் தீர்மானம் அச்சடிக்கப்பட்டு மக்கள் மத்தியில் சுற்றுக்கு விடப்பட்டது.

படிப்படியான தயாரிப்பு பணிகள்

இந்த தயாரிப்புகளின் ஒரு பகுதியாக, இரண்டு நாள் தேசிய அளவிலான கருத்தரங்கம் நடத்தப்பட்டது.  இந்த கருத்தரங்கத்தில் கியூப கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சியைச் சார்ந்த மாகாண பிரதிநிதிகள், இளம் கம்யூனிஸ்ட் லீகின் பிரதிநிதிகள், வெகுஜன அமைப்புகளின் பிரதிநிதிகள், சட்ட வல்லுநர் சங்க பிரதிநிதிகள், புரட்சிகர ஆயுதப்படை அமைச்சகப் பிரதிநிதிகள், உள்துறை பிரதிநிதிகள் கொள்கை விரிவாக்க அமலாக்க ஆணையத்தின் பிரதிநிதிகள், தேசிய தேர்தல் கமிஷனின் பிரதிநிதிகள், சமூக பொருளாதார ஆய்வு மைய பிரதிநிதிகள் அயலுறவு துறை பிரதிநிதிகள் என 280-க்கும் மேற்பட்ட பிரதிநிதிகள் கலந்து கொண்டனர்.

புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்திற்கான நகல் தீர்மானத்தின் ஒட்டு மொத்த முன்மொழிவும், கியூப கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சியின் அரசியல் தலைமைக் குழு கடந்த மே 13, 2013 அன்று, இதற்கென பிரத்தியேகமாக நியமித்த குழுவினால் தயார் செய்யப்பட்டது.  இந்த குழுவிற்கு அப்போது கியூப கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சியின் முதல் செயலாளராக இருந்த ரௌல் காஸ்ட்ரோ ரூஸ் தலைமை தாங்கி வழிநடத்தினார்.  புதிய நகல் தீர்மானத்தின் சட்ட விதிமுறை அடிப்படை அம்சங்கள் 2014, ஜுன் 29ல் அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டன.

புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தினை உருவாக்க வேண்டியதன் அவசியம் குறித்து ரௌல் காஸ்ட்ரோ கூறும்போது

பின்வருமாறு விளக்குகிறார்.  ”நாம் நமது புரட்சிகர வழிமுறையில் அடிநாதமான மார்க்சிய – லெனினிய சித்தாந்தத்தையோ, மார்ட்டியின் பாரம்பறியத் தொடர்ச்சியையோ கைவிடாமல், பழைய மனநிலைகளையும்  மனத்தடைகளை ஒதுக்கி வைத்துவிட்டு, தாய்நாட்டின் தற்போதைய நிலையை கணக்கிலெடுத்துக்கொண்டு, எதிர்கால நிலைமை குறித்த தொலைநோக்குப் பார்வையுடன், இந்த புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தை உருவாக்க வேண்டியுள்ளது” என்றார் அவர்.

புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு முன்மொழிவிற்கான வழிகாட்டு நெறிமுறைகள்

  • பின்வரும் குறிப்புகளை ஆழ்ந்து ஆராய்ந்து, வழிகாட்டல் நெறிமுறைகளாகக் கொண்டு புதிய முன்மொழிவினை உருவாக்கியுள்ளனர்.
  • வரலாற்றுப் புகழ்மிக்க, புரட்சி வீரர் தோழர் பிடல் காஸ்ட்ரோ ரூஸ் அரசியல் சிந்தனைகள்.
  • இராணுவ படைத்தலைவர் ரௌல் காஸ்ட்ரோ ரூஸ் உரைகள் மற்றும்  வழிகாட்டுதல்கள்.
  • கியூப நாட்டின் சமூக பொருளாதார அபிவிருத்தி மாதிரியின் கருத்துரு.
  • கியூப நாட்டின் வர்ச்சிக்கான, தேசத்தின் முக்கியமான கேந்திரமான துறைகளின் சமூக பொருளாதார வளர்ச்சிக்கான 2030 தேசிய கனவு திட்டம்.
  • கட்சியின் புரட்சிகர சமூக பொருளாதார கொள்கைகள் – வழிகாட்டல்கள்.
  • முதல் கட்சி காங்கிரசின் கட்சி வேலைத்திட்டம் மற்றும் இலக்குகள்
  • இவை தவிர பல நாடுகளின் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டங்கள் – குறிப்பாக லத்தீன் அமெரிக்க நாடுகளின் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டங்கள் – அதிலும் குறிப்பாக வெனிசுலா, பொலிவியா, ஈக்வடார் போன்ற நாடுகளின் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டங்கள், அதே போல தங்களது சொந்த நாடுகளின் தன்மைக்கேற்ப சோசலிச சமூகத்தை உருவாக்க முனைந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் வியட்நாம் மற்றும் சீன நாடுகளின் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டங்கள் மற்றும் பிற நாடுகளின் சட்டங்கள்

என அனைத்தும் ஆழ்ந்து ஆராய்ந்து பரிசீலனை செய்யப்பட்டு இந்த புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்திற்கான முன்மொழிவு உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தயாரிப்பு பணிகள் குறித்து :

இப்படிப்பட்ட இந்த தயாரிப்பு பணிகள் குறித்து அரசு செயலாளர் ஹொமேரோ அக்கொஸ்டா விவரிக்கும்போது, ”முதலாவதாக எங்களது அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட வரைவு வரலாற்றினை மிக முக்கியமாக ஆய்வு செய்தோம்.  1940-ம் ஆண்டு அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம், 1959-ம் ஆண்டு அடிப்படை அரசியல் சட்டங்கள், தற்போதைய கியூப குடியரசின் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம் என அனைத்தையும் ஆராய்ந்தோம்.  இந்த ஜுன் 2-ம் தேதி ஒரு தனிச்சிறப்பு அமர்வில், கியூபக் குடியரசின் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் இப்படிப்பட்ட ஒரு புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நகல் தீர்மானத்தினை உருவாக்குவதற்கென ஒரு ஆணையத்தை நியமித்தது.  அந்த ஆணையம் இக்காலக்கட்டம் முழுவதும் கடுமையாக உழைத்தது.  அனைத்தையும் ஆராய்ந்து ஜுலை 2,3 தேதிகளில் கட்சியின் மத்திய கமிட்டியின் 7-வது தன்னுடைய முதல் நகல் தீர்மானத்தை முன்மொழிந்தது.” என்கிறார்.

அதன்பிறகு, இந்த நகல் தீர்மானம் கியூப நாட்டின் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தில் பிரதிநிதிகளின் விவாதத்திற்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டு, அங்கு  ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டு, தற்போது கியூப மக்களின் விவாதத்திற்கென விடப்பட்டுள்ளது.

நகல் தீர்மானத்தை மேம்பட்டதாகக் காட்டும் முதன்மையான அம்சங்களும், ஷரத்துகளும்

ஒரு முகவுரை, 224 சட்ட ஷரத்துகள், (தற்போதைய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தில உள்ளதை விட அதிகமாக 87 ஷரத்துகள்), 11 தலைப்புகள், 24 அத்தியாயங்கள், மற்றும் 16 பிரிவுகளை உள்ளடக்கியதாக புதிய முன்மொழிவு உள்ளது.  11 சட்ட ஷரத்துகள் தற்போது உள்ளது போலவே அப்படியே வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  113 சட்ட ஷரத்துகள் திருத்தப்பட்டுள்ளன.  13 சட்ட ஷரத்துகள் நீக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

இந்த முன்மொழிவின் உள்ளடக்கமானது, ஒன்றுக்கொன்று ஒத்திருக்கும் தன்மையாலும், திட்டவட்டமான ஒழுங்குமுறையுடன் அமைந்துள்ளதாலும், காரணகாரியத் தொடர்புடையதுமாக மறு ஒழுங்கமைவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதாலும், மேம்படுத்தப்பட்டதாக உள்ளது.  கியூப நாட்டின் தற்போதைய சமூக, அரசியல், பொருளாதார உண்மை நிலையினை சரியான விதத்தில் விளக்கும் வகையிலான சொற்பதங்களுடன்,  தனிச் சிறப்பு மிக்க மொழிவளத்துடன், தேவைக்கேற்றதொரு நெகிழ்வுத்தன்மையுடன்,, வருங்காலத்திற்கு உகந்ததாய், பாதுகாப்பினை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்துவதாய், கியூப நாட்டின் உண்மை நிலையுடன் பொருத்தப்பாடுடையதாய் அமைந்த வார்த்தைகளால் வடிவமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த புதிய முன்மொழிவானது கியூபாவின் அரசியல், சமூக, பொருளாதார அமைப்பில் உள்ள சோசலிச குணமாம்சத்தை மீண்டும் உறுதிப்படுத்தியுள்ளது.  அதே போல, கியூப கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சியின் முன்னணி பாத்திரத்தையும் உறுதிப்படுத்தியுள்ளது. அடிப்படை உற்பத்தி வழிமுறைகள் அனைத்தும் ஒட்டுமொத்த நாட்டு மக்களின் உடைமை என்ற சோஷலிச உரிமையை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்துவதற்கு தேவையான அத்தியாவசிய கொள்கைகளை தன்னுடைய ஷரத்துகளில் உள்ளடக்கி உள்ளது.  அதற்கேற்ற வகையில் இந்த முன்மொழிவின் பொருளாதார கட்டமைப்பு வடிவமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  சந்தையின் பங்கு பாத்திரம், அரசுடைமை அல்லாத புதிய சொத்து வடிவங்கள் மற்றும் தனியார் சொத்துகள் போன்றவையும் கணக்கில் கொள்ளப்பட்டு, புதிய பொருளாதார திட்டமிடல்கள் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளன.  தன்னுடைய பிரத்தியேக பாணியில், கியூப அரசு கையெழுத்திட்டுள்ள சர்வதேச பத்திரங்களின் ஷரத்துகளுக்கு ஏற்ற வகையில், பல்வேறு பரவலான உரிமைகளை உள்ளடக்கி, அவை சிறப்பு கவனத்தை பெறும் வகையில்  புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட ஷரத்துகள் வடிவமைக்கப்படுள்ளன.

பாதுகாப்பிற்கான உரிமையும், அதற்கு தேவையான நடைமுறையும், சாமானியர்களும் பங்கேற்கும் வகையில் சிறப்பு முக்கியத்துவம் அளிக்கப்பட்டு மறுவடிவம் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.

மாற்றுத்திறனாளி என்பதாலோ, ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட இனத்தைச் சார்ந்தவர் என்பதற்காகவோ, பாலினம் சார்ந்தோ பாகுபாட்டுடன் கியூப குடிமக்கள் நடத்தப்படக்கூடாது என்பதற்காக, ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகளை நீக்கும் வகையிலான ஷரத்துகள் இணைக்கப்பட்டு, சமத்துவ உரிமை மேலும் மேம்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசு அதிகாரிகள், ஊழியர்கள், இயக்குநர்கள் போன்றவர்களோ அல்லது அரசு அமைப்புகளோ-நிறுவனங்களோ தங்களுடைய முறையில்லாத நடவடிக்கைகளாலோ அல்லது செயல்படாத தன்மையாலோ தனிநபர்களுக்கு பாதிப்புகளை, நஷ்டங்களை ஏற்படுத்தும் பட்சத்தில், அவர்கள் தாங்கள் இழந்த உரிமைகளை திரும்பப் பெறுவதற்காக அல்லது நஷ்டஈடு பெறுவதற்காக நீதிமன்றங்களை அணுகி மனு தாக்கல் செய்து திரும்பப் பெற்றுக் கொள்வதற்கான வாய்ப்புகள் உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

திருமணத்தை பொறுத்தவரையில், தற்போது ”ஒரு ஆணுக்கும் பெண்ணுக்கும் இடையிலான ஒப்பந்தம்” என்றிருப்பதை மாற்றி, திருமணம் என்பது ”இரு நபர்களுக்கு இடையிலான ஒப்பந்தம்” என்று வரையறை செய்யப்பட்டு திருத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசு அமைப்புகளுக்கிடையே ஒரு போதுமான சமநிலை இருக்கும் வகையில் புதிய அரசியலமைப்பின் சட்டவிதிகள் மாற்றியமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  கியூபக் குடியரசு தலைவர் கியூப அரசின் (state) தலைமைப் பொறுப்பிலும், பிரதமர் கியூப அரசாங்கத்தின் (government) பொறுப்பாளராகவும் இருப்பார் என்று வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதே நேரம், இருவரும் கியூப மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்ற பிரதிநிதிகளாகவும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என திருத்தியமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

கியூப பாராளுமன்றத்தின் நிரந்தர அங்கமாக அரசவைக்குழு இருக்கும்.  இந்த அரசவைக்குழு பாராளுமன்றத்துடன் நெருக்கமான தொடர்புடையதாக இருக்கும்.  குறிப்பாக இரண்டு அமைப்புகளின் தலைவரும், துணைத்தலைவரும், செயலாளரும் ஒரே தனிநபர்களாக இருப்பர் என்பதால் அதிக தொடர்புடைய அமைப்புகளாக அவை இருக்கும்.  இதன் மூலமாக மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்திற்கும், தேசத் தலைமைக்குமான இடைவெளி குறையும்.  மேலும் மக்களின் பிரநிதிகளில் ஒருவரே தேசத் தலைமைக்கும் வருவதால் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்திற்கு கட்டுப்பட்டவராகவும் அவர் இருப்பார்.

அரசு அமைப்புகளில் இன்னொரு முக்கியமான புதுமையான அம்சமாக, தேசிய தேர்தல் கவுன்சில் என்பது உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  இந்த கவுன்சில் இந்த பணிக்கென்றே பிரதியேகமாக இயங்கும்.  அதே போல கணக்கு தணிக்கையாளர் குறித்த ஷரத்தும் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தில் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

உள்ளாட்சி அமைப்புகளைப் பொறுத்தவரையில், மாகாண குழுக்கள் என்பது நீக்கப்பட்டு, மாகாண அளவில் ஒரு ஆளுநர் மற்றும் கவுன்சிலுடன் கூடிய மாகாண அரசு அமைக்கப்படுகிறது.

தேச நலனுக்கு உகந்த வகையில், தன்னாட்சி உரிமையுடன் பெரும் பங்காற்றக்கூடிய நிலையினை கியூப நகராட்சிகள் இந்த புதிய முன்மொழிவின் மூலம் பெறுகின்றன.

நகராட்சி நிர்வாகக்குழு என்பது நகராட்சியின் நிர்வாகத்தை கவனிக்கும் என்பது மீண்டும் உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.  தற்போதுள்ள தலைவர் (president or chief) என்ற சொல்லாடல் மாற்றப்பட்டு, கண்காணிப்பாளர் அல்லது மேற்பார்வையாளர் (superintendent) என்ற சொல்லாடல் பயன்படுத்தப்படுகிறது.  அவர் நகராட்சி நிர்வாகக்குழுவின் தலைமைப் பொறுப்பில் இருப்பார் என்று வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தேர்தலைப் பொறுத்தவரையில், 16 வயது பூர்த்தியடைந்த அனைத்து கியூப பிரஜைக்கும், (சட்டத்தில் விதிவிலக்காக சொல்லப்பட்டவர்கள் தவிர), வாக்குரிமை உண்டு என்பது மாற்றப்படாமல் அப்படியே வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இராணுவம் மற்றும் தேச பாதுகாப்பு என்ற தலைப்பு இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  இதில் தேசிய பாதுகாப்பு கவுன்சிலின் முக்கிய நோக்கம் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  சட்டவிதிகளுக்குட்பட்டு, அமைதிகாலங்களில் சில கடமைகளை செய்வதற்கான அங்கீகாரம், பேரழிவு காலங்களில் சில கடமைகளை செய்வதற்கான அங்கீகாரம், இயற்கைக்கு மாறான பிற நிலைகளில்  இந்த அமைப்பினால் நிறைவேற்றப்பட வேண்டிய கடமைகள் போன்ற நோக்கங்கள் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

புதிய நகல் தீர்மானத்தின் திருத்தத்தை செய்வதற்கென்று சில நபர்கள் அடையாளம் காணப்பட்டு  அதிகாரம் அளிக்கப்பட்டனர்.   அதே நேரம் இந்த ஷரத்துகள் விவாதத்திற்கு விடப்பட்டுள்ள இந்த இடைப்பட்ட காலத்தில் திருத்த முடியாதவைகளாகவும் இருக்கும் என்பதும் கவனிக்கத்தக்கது.  இந்த புதிய நகல் தீர்மான திருத்தத்திற்கென்று தீர்மானிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள, மற்றும் அது நடைமுறை அமலுக்கு வர வேண்டிய தினத்தில், தேவையான மாறுதல்களுடன் நிறைவான அம்சங்கள் மற்றும் திருத்தப்பட்ட ஷரத்துகளுடன் புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட விதிகள் நடைமுறைக்கு வரும்.

அரசியல் சார்ந்த அடிப்படை ஷரத்துகள்

இந்த தலைப்பு புதியது.  பொருளாதார அடிப்படைகளிலிருந்து அரசியல் அடிப்படைகளை வேறுபடுத்திக் காட்டுவது.  அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டம்தான் உயர்ந்த பட்ச  அதிகாரத்தை உடையது என்பதையும், நாட்டின் ஆட்சி அதிகாரத்திற்கான சட்ட விதிமுறைகள் என்பதையும் மீண்டும் உறுதிசெய்துள்ளது. சோஷலிச ஒழுங்கமைப்பை மேலும் வலுவூட்டும் வகையில், சட்டப்படி கியூப அரசு ஒரு சோஷலிச அரசு என்பது மீண்டும் உறுதிசெய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.

கியூப கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சி நாட்டிலும், சமூகத்திலும் தொடர்ந்து தனது தலைமை பாத்திரத்தை தக்க வைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறது.  அதனுடைய ஜனநாயக குணாம்சமும், மக்களுடன் அந்த கட்சிக்குள்ள நெருக்கமான நிரந்தரமான உறவும் மீண்டும் அழுத்தமாக வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.  சட்ட வரையறைகளின்படி உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ள சங்கங்கள் மற்றும் அமைப்புகளை அரசு அங்கீகரிப்பதுடன், அவை செயல்படுவதற்கான பாதுகாப்பையும் அளிக்கும் என்று உறுதியளிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசிற்கும் தேவாலயத்திற்குமான உறவு குறித்த விதிமுறைகள் தற்போது நடைமுறையில் உள்ள சாராம்சத்துடனே தொடர்கின்றன.

அரசியலமைப்பின் உச்சபட்ச அதிகாரத்தைப் பொறுத்த வரையில், அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட விதிகளை உறுதியாக பின்பற்ற வேண்டியது அரசு மற்றும் கியூப மக்களின் கடமையாகும்.  அரசு அமைப்புகள், இயக்குநர்கள், அதிகாரிகள் மற்றும் ஊழியர்களின் செயல்பாடுகள் அனைத்தும் அரசியலமைப்பு விதிகளுக்குட்பட்டு இருக்க வேண்டும்.  குறிப்பாக சோஷலிச அரசு என்பதை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்தும் வகையில் இவர்களது செயல்பாடுகள் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசு நிறுவனங்கள் மற்றும் அமைப்புகளும், அவற்றின் ஊழியர்களும் அரசியலமைப்பு விதிகளுக்குட்பட்டு மக்களுக்கு உரிய மரியாதை அளிக்கவும், சேவைகளை செய்யவும் வேண்டும்.  மக்களுடன் நெருக்கமான பிணைப்புள்ளவர்களாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பனவெல்லாம் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளன.

அரசு நிறைவேற்ற வேண்டிய அத்தியாவசியமான பொறுப்புகளில் கீழ்க்கண்ட அம்சங்கள் புதிதாக இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

*தேசத்தின் ஒற்றுமையை பலப்படுத்த வேண்டும்.

  • தேச பாதுகாப்பினை எப்போதும் உறுதி செய்ய வேண்டும்.

*தனி நபர் முன்னேற்றம் மற்றும் கூட்டு முன்னேற்றத்தினை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்தும் வகையிலான நீடித்த வளர்ச்சியை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்த வேண்டும்.  சமூக நீதி மற்றும் உயர்ந்தபட்ச சமத்துவத்தை எட்டுவதற்காக பாடுபட வேண்டும்.  புரட்சியின் மூலம் நாம் எட்டிய சாதனைகளை பாதுகாப்பது மட்டுமல்லாமல் மேலும் விரிவுபடுத்தவும் முன்னேறவும் வேண்டும்.

  • சோஷலிச சமூக அமைப்பின் உள்ளார்ந்த இயல்பில் உள்ள ஒழுக்கங்களையும், சித்தாந்தத்தையும் மேலும் பலப்படுத்த வேண்டும்.

  • தேசத்தின் பூர்வீகமான, வரலாற்றுரீதியான, இயற்கை இயல்புடன் கூடிய கலாச்சாரங்களை பாதுகாக்க வேண்டும்.

போன்றவை முக்கியமாக இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள புதிய அம்சங்களாகும்.

அயலுறவு கொள்கைகளை பொறுத்தவரையில் ஏற்கனவே உள்ள அம்சங்கள் மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளன.  இருந்தும் ஒரு சில அம்சங்களும் புதிதாக இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

அயலுறவு கொள்கைகளைப் பொறுத்தவரையில், அதன் சட்டவிதிமுறைகள் மீண்டும் உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளன.  சில ஷரத்துகள் புதிதாக இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  அவற்றுள் சில:-

சர்வதேச சட்டத்தை மதிக்க வேண்டும், பல துருவ நாடுகள் என்ற நிலை வளர்த்தெடுக்கப்பட வேண்டும்.  ஏகாதிபத்தியம், பாசிசம், காலனியாதிக்கம் அல்லது நவீன காலனியாதிக்கம் மற்றும் இது போன்ற பெயர்களில் எது வந்தாலும், அதற்கு கடுமையான கண்டனம் தெரிவிக்கப்பட வேண்டும்.  மனித உரிமைகளை பாதுகாக்க வேண்டும்.  இனவெறி மற்றும் வேற்றுமை பாகுபாடுகளை ஏற்கக் கூடாது.  ஆயுதப் பரவலையும், அணு ஆயுதங்களை பயன்படுத்துவது மற்றும் அணு ஆயுதப் பரவல் என்பதையும் நிராகரிக்க வேண்டும்.  சர்வதேச மனித இன நம்மைக்கான சட்டத்தை மீறி மக்களை பூண்டோடு அழிக்கும் நடவடிக்கைகள் போன்றவற்றை எதிர்க்க வேண்டும்,  நிராகரிக்க வேண்டும்.   அனைத்துவிதமான தீவிரவாதத்தையும் எதிர்ப்பதுடன் ஏற்க மறுத்து கண்டனம் தெரிவிக்க வேண்டும்.  குறிப்பாக தீவிரவாத அரசினை – அரசு தீவிரவாதத்தினை எதிர்க்க வேண்டும்.  சுற்றுச்சூழலை பேணிப் பாதுகாக்க வேண்டும்.  பருவ நிலை மாற்றத்திற்கெதிரான போராட்டத்தை நடத்த வேண்டும் என்பது போன்ற அம்சங்கள் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

பொருளாதார அடிப்படைகள்

புதிய அம்சமாக சந்தை என்பது கணக்கில் கொள்ளப்பட்டு அதனை ஒழுங்குபடுத்துவதற்கான ஷரத்துகள் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  சமூக நலனை பாதுகாக்கும் வகையில், சந்தையால் உருவாகும் பொருளாதார ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகள் உருவாகாமல் இருக்கும் வகையில் பொருளாதார திட்டமிடல்கள் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளன.

சொத்துக்களின் பல்வேறு வகைகள் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டு அவை பட்டியலிடப்பட்டுள்ளன.  தனிநபர்களுக்கு அல்லது கூட்டுறவு அமைப்புகளுக்கு சொந்தமில்லாத நிலங்கள், நிலத்தடி மண், சுரங்கங்கள், கியூபக் குடியரசிற்குட்பட்ட (உயிர்வாழ் மற்றும் உயிரற்ற) இயற்கை வளங்கள், காடுகள், நீர்வளங்கள், மற்றும் தகவல் தொடர்பு வழிகள் போன்ற ஒட்டு மொத்த மக்களின் சோஷலிச சொத்துக்கள் – அதாவது மக்களின் சார்பான அரசுடைமை சொத்துகள், கூட்டுறவு அமைப்புகளின் சொத்துகள், இரண்டு அல்லது அதற்கு மேற்பட்ட வடிவங்களிலான சொத்துடமைகளின் கலவை, அரசியல், வெகுஜன மற்றும் சோஷலிச அமைப்புகளின் சொத்துகள், தனியார் சொத்துகள் மற்றும் உற்பத்திசாரா அதே நேரம் தனிநபர் தேவைகளை பூர்த்தி செய்யும் வகையிலான தனி நபர் உடைமையிலான சொத்துகள் என அனைத்தும் பட்டியலிடப்பட்டு, அவை அனைத்தும் கியூப பொருளாதாரத்தில் இடம் பெறுவதற்கான அங்கீகாரம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதே நேரத்தில் இவை அனைத்துமே சோஷலிச தன்மையுடன் வளர்த்தெடுக்கப்படும் என்றும் தீர்மானிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தேசிய நலன்கள், மாகாண நல்கன்கள் மற்றும் கியூப குடிமக்களின் நலன்களை பாதுகாக்கும் வகையில் பொருளாதார செயல்பாடுகளும், சமூக பொருளாதார அபிவிருத்திக்கான திட்டமிடல்களும் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பது உறுதிபடுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதற்கேற்ற வகையில் அரசின் பொருளாதார நடவடிக்கைகள் குறித்த வழிகாட்டல்கள் மற்றும் ஒழுங்குபடுத்தும் விதிமுறைகள் உருவாக்கப்படும் என்று மீண்டும் உத்தரவாதமளிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  ஏழாவது கட்சி காங்கிரசில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது போல, அரசின் பொருளாதார திட்டமிடல்களில், வழிகாட்டல்களில், கண்காணிப்பு அமைப்புகளில், ஒழுங்குமுறை அமைப்புகளில் என அனைத்திலும் தொழிலாளர்களின் பங்கு இருக்கும் என்பது மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தேச இறையாண்மைக்கும், தேச வளங்களுக்கும் பங்கம் விளைவிக்காத வகையில் அந்நிய முதலீடுகள் அங்கீகரிக்கப்படும் என்று வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

நியாயமான விலை கொடுத்து ஒரு நிலத்தை அரசு வாங்க முனைந்தால் அதற்கு முன்னுரிமை அளிக்க வேண்டும் என்பதும், அதனை தடுக்காத வகையில் சட்ட திட்டங்களுக்குட்பட்டு தனிநபர்கள் நிலத்தை வாங்கவும் விற்கவும் செய்யலாம் என்ற ஒரு சிறப்பு ஷரத்து இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

வாடகைக்கு விடுவதோ, குத்தகைக்கு விடுவதோ, நிலத்தை பிரிப்பதோ, அடமானம் வைப்பதோ அல்லது தனியார்கள் ஆதாயம் பெறும் வகையில் உரிமை மாற்றம் செய்வதோ போன்ற நடவடிக்கைகளுக்கு ஏற்கனவே விதிக்கப்பட்டிருந்த தடைகள் அப்படியே தொடர்கின்றன.

குடியுரிமை

இதிலுள்ள அடிப்படை மாற்றம் என்னவென்றால், இரட்டை குடியுரிமை என்பதை நாம் அங்கீகரிக்கவில்லை என்பதை மாற்றி, ”பயனுள்ள சக்திமிக்க குடியுரிமை’ என்ற கொள்கையின் அடிப்படையில், ”கியூப குடிமக்கள் கியூப நாட்டிற்குள், அங்குள்ள சட்டதிட்டங்களுக்கு உட்பட்டு இருப்பர் என்றும் ஒரு அந்நிய குடியுரிமையை உபயோகப்படுத்த முடியாது” என்றும் மாற்றப்பட்டுள்ளது.

உரிமைகள், பொறுப்புகள் மற்றும் உத்தரவாதங்கள்

இந்த தலைப்பின் கீர் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம் முழுவதும் விரவிக் கிடக்கும் கியூப குடிமக்களின் உரிமைகளும், பொறுப்புகளும், அவர்களது உரிமைகளை மேலும் வலுவூட்டும் உத்தரவாதங்களும் ஒன்றாக தொகுக்கப்பட்டு, அவற்றை பாதுகாக்க கியூப அரசு செய்ய வேண்டிய கடமைகளும் சுட்டிக்காட்டப்பட்டுள்ளது.

பல மனித உரிமை கருத்தரங்கங்களில், கியூபா ஒத்துக்கொண்டு கையொப்பமிட்ட உடன்படிக்கைகளில் அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள உரிமைகள் இந்த தலைப்பின் கீழ் கொடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

தனிநபர் உரிமைகள் என்பது, தேசிய சட்டங்களில் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ள  நல்லொழுக்க விதிகளுக்கும், கூட்டுப்பாதுகாப்பிற்கும், பிறருடைய உரிமைகளுக்கும் உட்பட்டதான எல்லைகளுடன் இருக்கும்.

பொது சுகாதாரம் மற்றும் மருத்துவம் என்ற ஷரத்துகளின் கீழ் அனைத்து பிரஜைகளுக்கும் இலவச மருத்துவம் என்பது உத்தரவாதப்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதே போல அவர்கள் நோய்வாய்ப்படும்போது நோயிலிருந்து குணமாகும் வரை அவர்களுக்கான மருத்துவ சிகிச்சைகள் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்பதும் பொது மக்களை நோயிலிருந்து பாதுகாக்கும் வகையிலான சில சிறப்பு சேவைகள் வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்பதும் மீண்டும் உத்தரவாதப்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

கல்வி குறித்த ஷரத்துகளில், இளநிலை பட்டப்படிப்பு(under graduate)க்கு முந்தைய நிலை வரையிலான பள்ளிக் கல்வி இலவசமாக வழங்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்பதும், அது மதச்சார்பற்ற கல்வியாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதும், கல்வி என்பது அனைவரது உரிமை என்பதும், கல்வியை அளிப்பதென்பது குடும்பங்கள் , அரசு மற்றும் சமுதாயத்தின் கடமை மற்றும் பொறுப்பு என்றும் வலியுறுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

நீதித்துறை  சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பல ஷரத்துகளும், நீதி வழங்கல் பெறுதல் தொடர்பான பல புதிய உரிமைகளும் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  இவற்றில் நாம் கவனிக்கத்தக்க பல அம்சங்கள் உள்ளன.  குறிப்பாக (habeas corpus – to prevent arbitrary detentions) மனிதாபிமானமற்ற முறையில் காவலில் வைத்திருப்பது, சிறையில் விசாரணையின்றி அடைக்கப்படுவதை தடுக்கும் வகையிலான ஷரத்துகள் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  அதே போல கைது செய்யப்பட்டுள்ள அல்லது சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளவர்களின் பாதுகாப்பினை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்தும் ஷரத்துகளும் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  பொது, ஆவணங்களில் உள்ள தனிநபர் புள்ளி விவரங்களை தெரிந்து கொள்வதற்கான உரிமையும் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதேபோல, சிறையிலிருந்து விடுவிக்கப்பட்டவுடன், அந்த தனி நபர்கள் கியூப சமூகத்திற்குள் மறுபடியும் சேர்க்கப்பட வேண்டும் என்ற ஷரத்தும் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த நாட்டின் ஒவ்வொரு குடிமக்களுக்கும் தேசத்தின் கலாச்சார கட்டமைப்பை உருவாக்கவும், பங்கு கொள்ளவும், கலாரசனையுடன் வாழவுமான உரிமை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தனிநபர்கள் செய்யும் வேலையின் அளவு, வேலையில் உள்ள சிக்கலின் தன்மை, தேவைப்படும் திறன், அந்த வேலையின் தரம், மற்றும் அந்த வேலையின் பயன்கள் என்பவற்றை பொறுத்து தனிநபர்கள் தங்களுடைய ஒப்பீட்டுத் தொகையை பெறுவதற்கான உரிமை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தரமான பொருட்களையும் சேவைகளையும் பெறுவதற்கான உரிமையும், அவை குறித்த தகவல்களை பெறும் உரிமையும், பொருத்தமான வகையில் பெறும் உரிமையும் இணைக்கப்பட்டுளளது.

இறுதியாக, குடிமை மற்றும் அரசியல் உரிமைகளும், அவர்களுது கடமைகளும் மேற்கோடிட்டுக் காட்டப்பட்டுள்ளன.  ஒருவது உரிமைகளை பாதுகாத்துக் கொள்ள நீதிமன்றங்களை அணுகி கோருவதற்கும் நீதியை பெறுவதற்குமான வழிமுறைகள் உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

கல்வியில், புரட்சிகர மதிப்புகள், ஒழுக்கவியல் விழுமங்கள், குடிமை மதிப்புகளின் முக்கியத்துவத்தை புதிய தலைமுறைகளுக்கு உறுதி செய்யும் வகையிலான கலாச்சார விஞ்ஞானப்பூர்வ கொள்கைகளை உருவாக்குவதில், தேசத்தின் பூர்வீக வரலாற்று வளங்கள் மற்றும் கலைகளுக்கு அரசு அளிக்கும் பாதுகாப்பு முறைகளில் இணைக்கப்பட வேண்டிய வழிமுறைகள் என்று அனைத்திற்கும் முக்கியத்துவம் அளிக்கப்பட்டு, அதற்கான சட்ட ஷரத்துகள் தொடர்கின்றன.

அரசின் கட்டமைப்பு

அரசின் உயர்மட்ட அமைப்புகள மற்றும் பிற அமைப்புகள் குறித்து இந்த தலைப்பு பேசுகிறது.

அத்தியாயம் 1

மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் போன்றன அரசு அமைப்புகளின் ஸ்தாபனம் மற்றம் செயல்பாட்டு முறைகள் குறித்து இந்த தலைப்பு விளக்குகிறது.  இந்த அமைப்புகளுக்கான உறுப்பினர்களை தேர்வு செய்யும் முறை மற்றும் அவர்களுடைய செயல்பாடுகள் குறித்த வழிகாட்டல்கள் பற்றி விளக்குகிறது.  சோஷலிச ஜனநாயகம் என்பது மீண்டும் உறுதிபடுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அத்தியாயம் 2

கியூபாவின் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் மற்றும் அரசவைக்குழு பற்றிய அத்தியாயம் இது.  அரசின் உச்பட்ட அதிகாரம் பெற்ற அமைப்பு என்ற அந்தஸ்துடன் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் தற்போதும் தொடர்கிறது.  இதற்கு மட்டுமே அரசியலமைப்பு விதிகள் மற்றும் சட்டங்களை இயற்றும் உரிமை உள்ளது.  அதனுடைய தலைமைக்கு தலைவர், துணைத்தலைவர், மற்றும் செயலாளர் பொறுப்பாவார்கள்.  இதற்கு தற்போது நடைமுறையில் உள்ள அரசியலமைப்பு விதிகளில் உள்ள அதிகாரங்களுடன் புதிதாக சில அதிகாரங்கள் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  அரசியமைப்பு சட்டவிதிகளின் உட்பொருளை விளக்குவது, அவ்வப்போது எழும் நிலைமைகளுக்கு ஏற்ப இந்த அரசியலமைப்பு விதிகளை பயன்படுத்துவதற்கான வாய்ப்பை அளிப்பது, தேவைப்பட்டால் வரிகளை போடவும், நீக்கவுமான உரிமை, இந்த அமைப்பிற்குட்பட்ட வரம்பு உள்ளீட்டெல்லையுடன் கூடிய அதிகாரம், நிர்வாக படி நிலைகளில் அந்தந்த ஆட்சி வரம்புக்குட்பட்ட பிரதேச சட்டதிட்டங்களை வரையறுத்துக் கொடுப்பதற்கான அதிகாரம், நகராட்சிகளுக்கும், மாவட்டங்களுக்கும் மற்றும் பிற எல்லை வகுக்கப்பட்ட பகுதிகளுக்குமான சிறப்பு ஒழுங்குமுறை அமைப்புகளை உருவாக்குவதற்கான அதிகாரம் போன்றவை இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

நாட்டின் அடிப்படை அமைப்புகளுக்கும் அரசாங்கத்தின் அடிப்படை அமைப்புகளுக்கும் உரிய பொறுப்பாளர் மற்றும் பிரதிநிதிகளை தேர்ந்தெடுப்பது இந்த மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தின் பொறுப்பாகும்.  இதைத் தாண்டி கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவர் மற்றும் துணைத்தலைவர், தேசிய தேர்தல் கவுன்சிலின் உறுப்பினர்களை தேர்வு செய்வதும், பிரதம மந்திரி மற்றும் மாகாண ஆளுநர்களை நியமிப்பதும் இந்த மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தின் பொறுப்பாகும்.  ஏற்கனவே குறிப்பிட்டபடி அரசவைக்குழுவின் தலைமைப் பொறுப்பும், பாராளுமன்ற தலைமைப் பொறுப்பும் ஒரே தனி நபர்களின் கீழ் இருக்கும்.  இதனுடைய நோக்கம் இந்த இரண்டு அமைப்புகளுக்கும் இடையே இன்னும் நெருக்கமான தொடர்பினை பயனுள்ள வகையில் ஏற்படுத்துவது என்பதாகும்.  தலைவர், துணைத்தலைவர், செயலாளர் தவிர்த்த பிற உறுப்பினர்களை அரசவை தேர்ந்தெடுக்கும்.  அதே நேரம் அரசவைக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள் மந்திரி சபையிலோ அல்லது நீதித்துறை, தேர்தல் ஆணையம் அல்லது அரசாங்க கட்டுப்பாட்டு அமைப்புகளின் தலைமைப் பொறுப்புகளில் இருக்கக்கூடாது என்பதன் மூலம் ஒரு போதுமான அதிகார சமநிலை உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசவைக்குழுவின் தற்போதைய அதிகாரங்கள் அப்படியே தொடர்கின்றன.

அரசவைககுழுவினால் இயற்றப்படும் அரசாணைகளும், போடப்படும் ஒப்பந்தங்களும் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தின் ஒப்புதலுக்குப் பிறகே அமலுக்கு வரும்.

அத்தியாயம் 3

கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவர் மற்றும் துணைத்தலைவர் பற்றி இந்த அத்தியாயம் பேசுகிறது.

கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவர் கியூப நாட்டின் தலைவராக இருப்பார்.  இவர் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்ற பிரநிதிகளால் தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்படுவார்.  இவரது ஆட்சிக் காலம் 5 ஆண்டுகள் ஆகும்.

இந்த நபர் இரண்டு அடுத்தடுத்த ஆட்சிக்காலத்திற்கு பதவியில் தொடரலாம்.  அதன்பிறகு தொடர முடியாது.

கியூபக் குடியரசு தலைவர் பிரதிநிதிகளின் அறுதி பெரும்பான்மை வாக்குகுளை பெற வேண்டும். வயது 35 பூர்த்தியாகியிருக்க வேண்டும்.  கியூபக் குடியுரிமை மற்றும் பிற அரசியல் உரிமைகளை பெற்றவராக இருக்க வேண்டும்.  பிறப்பால் கியூப குடிமகனாகவும், வேறு எந்த குடியுரிமையும் இல்லாதவராகவும் இருக்க வேண்டும்.  மேலும், அப்படி தலைவராக தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்படும் ஒருவர் தன்னுடைய முதலாவது ஆட்சிக்காலத்தில் 60 வயது தாண்டியவராக இருத்தல் கூடாது.

இதே முறையில் தான் கியூபக் குடியரசின் துணைத்தலைவரும் அதே ஆட்சிக்காலத்திற்கு தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்படுவார்.  குடியரசு தலைவர் நோய்வாய்ப்பட்டிருந்தாலோ அல்லது இறந்து போனாலோ அவருக்கு பதிலாக அவரிடத்தில் இவர் செயல்படுவார்.  ஒரு வேளை குடியரசுத்தலைவர் பதவி காலியாகும்பட்சத்தில் அதற்கான மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் பதில் நபரை மாற்றாக தேர்ந்தெடுக்கும்.  கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவரும், உதவித்தலைவரும் இல்லாத நிலையில், மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றம் மாற்று நபர்களை பதிலாக தேர்ந்தெடுக்கும்.  அதற்கு இடைப்பட்ட காலத்தில் மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்ற தலைவர் தற்காலிகமாக கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவராக செயல்படுவார்.

அத்தியாயம் 4

கியூப அரசாங்கம் பற்றிய அத்தியாயம் இது.  மந்திரிகள் சபையின் அந்தஸ்து முன்பிருந்தபடியே அரசாங்கத்தின் உச்சபட்ச நிர்வாகக் குழுவாக இருக்கும்.  பிரதம மந்திரி இந்த சபையின் தலைமைப் பொறுப்பேற்று வழிநடத்துவார்.  துணை பிரதம மந்திரிகள் மற்றும் பிற மந்திரிகள், செயலாளர் மற்றும் பிற உறப்பினர்கள் சட்டப்படி தீர்மானிக்கப்படுவர்.  முறைப்படி கூடும் கூட்டங்களுக்கு மத்தியில் இடைப்பட்ட காலத்தில் மந்திரி சபையின் செயற்குழு கூடி தங்களுடைய அதிகார வரம்புகளுக்குட்பட்ட விஷயங்களில் முடிவுகளை எடுக்கும்.

இந்த மந்திரிகள் சபையின் அதிகாரம் முன்பு குறிப்பிட்ட அமைப்புகளைப்போலவே பழைய மாதிரியே தொடர்கின்றன.

புதிய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட விதிகளின் படி, கியூபக் குடியரசு தலைவரின் முன்பெமாழிவின்படி, பாராளுமன்றம் பிரதம மந்திரியை 5 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு நியமனம் செய்யும்.  இவரும் பிரதிநிதிகளின் அறுதி பெரும்பான்மை வாக்குகளை பெற வேண்டும்.

அத்தியாயம் 5

சட்டங்கள் குறித்த அத்தியாயம் இது.  ஏற்கனவே நடைமுறையில் சட்டங்கள் தொடர்பான விவகாரங்களில் உள்ளவர்களுடன், தற்போது கியூபக் குடியரசின் தலைவர், அரசு கணக்கு தணிக்கையாளர், தேசிய தேர்தல் குழு ஆகியோர் அவ்வவற்றின் அதிகாரம் படைத்த விவகாரங்களில் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர். மேலும் இந்த தலைப்பின் கீழ் தான் சட்டவிதிகள் அறிவிக்கப்படுவது மற்றும் அமலுக்கு வரும் தேதி போன்ற விவகாரங்கள் வருகின்றன.

அத்தியாயம் 6

நீதிமன்றங்கள் பற்றியது.  நீதியை வழங்குவதில் நீதிபதிகளுக்கும், நீதிமன்றங்களுக்கும் இருக்க வேண்டிய செயல்முறை சுதந்திரத்தின் அவசியத்தை மேலும் வலியுறுத்துகிறது.  மக்கள் உச்சநீதிமன்றம் குறிப்பிட்ட கால இடைவெளியில் தன்னுடைய வேலை அறிக்கையினை மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்திற்கு அளிக்க வேண்டும்.  இந்த உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தின் நீதிபதிகள் அதாவது குற்றவியல் நடுவர்கள்ம், பிற நீதிபதிகளும் தேசிய பாராளுமன்றத்தாலோ அல்லது அரசவைக்குழுவினாலோ தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்படுவர்.  பிற நீதிபதிகளின் தேர்வு என்பது விதிகளுக்குட்பட்டு தீர்மானிக்கப்படும்.

அத்தியாயம் 7

கியூபக் குடியரசின் அட்டர்னி ஜெனரல், அலுவலகம் பற்றிய அத்தியாயம் இது.  இதனுடைய அடிப்படை நோக்கங்களில் உள்ள குறிப்பிடத்தகுந்த மாற்றங்கள்—அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டவிதிகள், சட்டங்கள் மற்றும் பிற பொதுவான சட்ட வழிகளுக்குட்பட்டு குற்றவியல் விசாரணைகளுக்கு முன்னுரிமை அளித்து விசாரித்து அரசு சார்பாக எடுக்க வேண்டிய பொது நடவடிக்கைகளை எடுக்க வேண்டும்.  அதேபோல இன்னொரு புதிய அம்சம் என்னவென்றால், அட்டர்னி ஜெனரல் குடியரசு தலைவரின் நேரடி கண்காணிப்புக்குட்பட்டவர் என்பதாகும்.

அத்தியாயம் 8

கியூபக் குடியரசின் அரசு தணிக்கையாளர், அலுவலகம் பற்றிய அத்தியாயம் இது.  உயர்தரமான நிர்வாக இயங்குமுறையை உத்தரவாதப்படுத்துவது என்பது தான் இந்த அலுவலகத்தின் முக்கிய பொறுப்பு.  அதே போல சரியான முறையில், வெளிப்படையான முறையில் பொது நிதிகள் பயன்படுத்தப்பட வேண்டும் என்பதை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்த வேண்டும் என்பதும் முக்கிய நோக்கமாகும்.  இவரும் கியூபக் குடியரசுத் தலைவரின் நேரடி கண்காணிப்பின் கீழ் இருப்பார்.

அரசின் பிரதேச அமைப்புகள்

நாட்டின் அரசயில் நிர்வாக பிரிவுகள் சார்ந்தவற்றில் தற்போதைய சட்டவிதிமுறைகளுடன் புதிதாக சில ஷரத்துகள் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  துணை நிர்வாக ஆட்சிமுறைகள் மற்றும் நகராட்சி அல்லது பிற பிரதேச அமைப்புகளுக்கான, மாவட்ட நிர்வாக அமைப்புகளுக்கான சிறப்பு ஒழுங்குமுறை அமைப்புகள் போன்றவற்றை உருவாக்குவது குறித்த ஷரத்துகள் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.  தேசிய ஸ்தாபத்தைப் பொறுத்த வரையில் நகராட்சி என்பது தான் அதனுடைய ஆரம்ப, அடிப்படை அரசியல் அலகு ஆகும்.  அதனுடைய சுய அதிகாரம் என்பது அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.  அதற்கு அதனுடைய அமைப்புகளுக்கான நிர்வாகிகளை தேர்ந்தெடுததுக் கொள்ளும் உரிமையும், அதனிடம் உள் வளங்களை பயன்படுத்துவது குறித்து முடிவெடுக்கும் உரிமையும், அரசியலமைப்பு விதிமுறைகள் மற்றும் பிற சட்டங்களுக்குட்பட்டு அதிகார தகுதிகளை பயன்படுத்துவது போன்றவையும் அங்கீகரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

இதில் உள்ள முக்கியமான மாற்றம் என்னவென்றால், மாகாண குழுக்கள் என்பது நீக்கப்பட்டு, ஒரு ஆளுநர் தலைமையிலான ஒரு கவுன்சில் அமைக்கப்பட்ட அதன் தலைமையிலான ஒரு மாகாண அரசு அமைக்கப்படும் என்பதாகும்.

இந்த மாகாண அரசினை உருவாக்குவதற்கான அடிப்படை நோக்கம் என்னவென்றால், அந்த பிரதேசத்திற்குட்பட்ட பகுதியில் சமூக பொருளாதார முன்னற்றத்திற்கு பாடுபடுவது, நகராட்சி மற்றும் மத்திய அரசாங்கங்களுக்கிடையே ஒரு ஒருங்கிணைப்பை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்துவது, வழிகாட்டுவது, கண்காணிப்பது, பயிற்சி அளிப்பது போன்ற தேவைப்படும் அனைத்தையும் செய்வது என்பதாகும்.

மேலும், இந்த மாகாண அரசு அந்த மாகாணம் மற்றும் அதற்குட்பட்ட நகராட்சிகளின் நலன்களை பாதுகாக்க வேண்டிய வகையில் அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டவிதிகள் மற்றும் பிற சட்டங்களுக்குட்பட்டு செய்ய வேண்டும்.

இந்த மாகாணக்குழு என்பது ஆளுநரின் தலைமையில் இயங்கும்.  இதில் மக்கள் அதிகார நகராட்சி குழுக்களின் தலைவர்கள் உறுப்பினர்களாக இருப்ப.  இவர்களோடு கூட நகராட்சி நிர்வாகக் குழுக்களின் மேற்பார்வையாளர்களும், சட்டத்தால் தீர்மானிக்கப்படும் பிறரும் உறுப்பினர்களாக இருப்பார்கள்.

மாகாணத்தில் உச்சபட்ச நிர்வாகத் தலைமைப் பொறுப்பில் ஆளுநர் இருப்பார்.  இவர்க மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தால் நியமிக்கப்படுவார்.  இவரது ஆட்சிக்காலம் 5 வருடங்கள்.  மந்திரி சபை இயற்றும் கொள்கைகளுக்கேற்ப மாகாணத்தில் நிர்வாகக் கட்டமைப்பில் தேவையானவற்றை செய்து மாகாண நிர்வாகத்தை நடத்த வேண்டியது இவரது பொறுப்பாகும்.

இந்த முன்மொழிவின் படி ஒரு துணை ஆளுநரும் மந்திரி சபையால் நியமிக்கப்படுவார்.  இவருடைய ஆட்சிக்காலமும் 5 ஆண்டுகள் தான்.

5 ஆண்டுகளுக்கொரு முறை நகராட்சி சபைகளுக்கான தேர்தல் நடத்தப்படும் என்று இந்த முன்மொழிவில் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அந்த பகுதி மக்களின் உரிமைகளை உத்திரவாதப்படுத்துவதும், அவர்களின் பங்களிப்பை உறுதிசெய்வதும், அவர்களது உரிமைகளுக்ககான கோரிக்கைகளை அனுமதித்து அவற்றை பூர்த்தி செய்து கொடுப்பதை உறுதிப்படுத்துவதும் இந்த நாகராட்சி சபைகளின் பொறுப்பாகும்.

நகராட்சி நிர்வாகக் குழுக்களை பொறுத்தவரையில், அதனுடைய உறுப்பினர்கள் நகராட்சி சபைகளால் நியமிக்கப்படுவர்.  இந்த நிர்வாகக் குழுக்கள் நகராட்சி சபைகளின் துணை அமைப்புகளாக இயங்கும்.   இந்த மட்டத்திலான நிர்வாகம் இந்த அமைப்பினால் கவனிக்கப்படும்.  இங்கு குறிப்பிடத்தகுந்த மற்றொரு மாற்றம் என்பது இந்த நிர்வாக குழுவினை அதனுடைய மேற்பார்வையாளர் வழி நடத்துவார்.

தேர்தல் அமைப்பு

வாக்களிப்பது என்பது அனைத்து பிரஜைகளின் உரிமை மற்றும் பொறுப்பாகும்.  அவரவர் விருப்பப்படி சுதந்திரமாக வாக்களிக்கலாம், நேரடியாக வாக்களிக்கலாம், வாக்களிப்பதில் அனைவருக்கும் சம உரிமை உண்டு, இரகசிய வாக்களிப்பாகவும் இருக்கும் என்பன மீண்டும் உறுதிபடுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.  வாக்களிப்பதற்கான வயது வரம்பு 16 என்பது அப்படியே தொடர்கிறது.

தேசிய தேர்தல் குழு அரசின் நிரந்தர அமைப்பாக இருக்கும்.  இந்த அமைப்பு தேர்தல் பணிக்கென்றே பிரத்தியேகமாக உருவாக்கப்படுகிறது.  தேர்தல் நடத்துவதற்கான ஏற்பாடுகளை செய்வது, அனைவரையும் ஓட்டுப் போட வைப்பது, தேர்தலை முறையாக கண்காணிப்பது மக்கள் மத்தியில் கருத்துகளை கேட்பது, பொது முக்கியத்துவம் வாய்ந்த சில விஷயங்களில் மக்கள் வாக்கினை பதிவு செய்வது, பொது வாக்கெடுப்பிற்கு அழைப்பு விடுப்பது, தேர்தல் சம்பந்தமான விவகாரங்களில் வரும் புகார்களுக்கு தீர்வு அளிப்பது போன்றவை இந்த அமைப்பின் முக்கிய நோக்கங்களாகும்.

இந்த அமைப்பு சுய அதிகாரம் பெற்ற அமைப்பாக இருக்கும்.  மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்திற்கு மட்டுமே பதிலளிக்கக் கூடியது.  தேர்தல் நடந்து முடிந்தவுடன் இந்த குழு தேர்தல் முடிவுகளை நாட்டிற்கு அறிவிக்கும்.

தேசிய இராணுவம் மற்றும் பாதுகாப்பு

தேசிய இராணுவ குழு அரசின் உச்சபட்ச அமைப்பாகும்  அமைதிக்காலங்களில் இராணுவத்திற்கான ஆள் சேர்ப்பு, பயிற்சி அளித்தல், வழிகாட்டல்கள் அளித்தல் போன்றவை இதனுடைய பொறுப்பாகும்.  மேலும், இராணுவம் மற்றும் தேச பாதுகாப்பு குறித்த விவகாரங்களில் வகுக்கப்பட்டுள்ள சட்டங்களுக்கு உட்பட்டு செயல்படுவதை பொறுப்புடையது.

சில பிரத்தியேக மற்றும் பேரழிவு காலங்களில், இந்த குழு நாட்டிற்கு சில வழிகாட்டல்களை கொடுப்பதுடன், அரசாங்க மற்றும் அரசு அமைப்புகளின் மீது அதிகாரம் செலுத்தவல்லது.   தேசிய சபையின் அரசியலமைப்பு அதிகாரத்திற்கு இந்த விதி பொருந்தாது.

இந்த அமைப்பின் தலைவராக கியூபக் குடியரசு தலைவர் இருப்பார்.  அவர் ஒரு துணை தலைவரை நியமிப்பார்.  பிற உறுப்பினர்கள் சட்டப்படி தீர்மானிக்கப்படுவர்.

இது நாட்டின் ஆயுதப் படைகள் என்பது புரட்சிகர ஆயுதப் படைகளாக இருக்கும் என்று நிர்மாணம் செய்துள்ளது. உள்துறை அமைச்சகமானது தன்னுடைய கடமைகளை நிறைவேற்றுவதற்காக இராணுவம் மற்றும் பொதுமக்களின் பங்களிப்புடன் காவல்துறை உள்ளிட்ட பிற கட்டமைப்புகளை உருவாக்கிக் கொள்ளலாம் என்று நிர்மாணித்துள்ளது.

அரசியலமைப்பு சீர்திருத்தம்

மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்தில் பெயர் பட்டியலின்படி வாய்மொழி வாக்கெடுப்பு நடத்தி, அதன் பிரதிநிதிகளின் மூன்றில் இரண்டு பங்கு உறுப்பினர்களின் பெரும்பான்மை வாக்குகளை பெற்று மட்டுமே, அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டவிதிகள் திருத்தப்படும் என்று மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்திக் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட விதிகளை திருத்துவதற்கான முன்மொழிவினை கொடுக்கும் அதிகாரம் படைத்தவர்கள் –

கியூபக் குடியரசு தலைவர், அரசவை, மந்திரிகள் சபை, (மூன்றில் இரண்டு பங்கு பிரதிநிதிகள் கையெழுத்திட்டு முன்மொழிவினை அளிக்கும்பட்சத்தில்) தேசிய பாராளுமன்ற பிரதிநிதிகள், தேசிய தேர்தல் கவுன்சிலின் முன்பு குறைந்தபட்சம் 50000 தகுதி பெற்ற வாக்காளர்கள் கையெழுத்திட்டு மக்கள் அதிகார பாராளுமன்றத்திற்கு விண்ணப்பிக்கும்போது.

இப்படிப்பட்ட முன்மொழிவு எங்கு முன்வைக்கப்பட்டாலும், நாட்டின் வாக்களிக்க தகுதி பெற்ற வாக்காளர்களின் பெரும்பான்மை வாக்கினை, இந்த நோக்கத்திற்காகவே நடத்தப்படும் பொது வாக்கெடுப்பில் பெற்றால் மட்டுமே, முன்மொழியப்பட்ட திருத்தங்கள் அங்கீகரிக்கப்படும்.

”நாட்டின் சோஷலிசக் கொள்கை மற்றும் அரசியல், சமூக, பொருளாதார கட்டமைப்புகள் மாற்றத்தக்கவை அல்ல.  மேலும் அந்நிய சக்திகளின் மிரட்டலுக்கு உட்பட்டோ, பலவந்தப்படுத்தலுக்கு உட்பட்டோ, நிர்பந்தங்களின் மூலமாகவோ இதற்கான பேச்சுவார்த்தைகள் நடத்துவது என்பதும் தடைசெய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது” என்று இந்த புதிய நகல் தீர்மானத்தில் உறுதிசெய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது.

புரட்சிகர சிந்தனையாளர் பகத்சிங்

 

(குரல்: தேவிபிரியா)

இர்ஃபான் ஹபீப்

தமிழில் ச. லெனின்

பகத்சிங் அவரின் உயிர் தியாகத்திற்காக கொண்டாடப்படுகிறார். பலர் இந்த உணர்ச்சிப் பெருக்கினாலேயே சிந்தனையாளராகவும், அறிவிஜீவியாகவும்
பகத்சிங்கின் பங்களிப்பை மறக்கின்றனர்; சிலர் வேண்டுமென்றே மறைக்கின்றனர்.

பகத்சிங்கிற்கு முன்பும், பின்பும் பலர் நாட்டிற்காக தங்கள் உயிரைத் தியாகம் செய்துள்ளனர். ஆனால் மற்றவர்களை போல் அல்லாமல் பகத்சிங்கிற்கு சுதந்திர இந்தியா பற்றிய ஒரு பார்வை இருந்தது. சமீப ஆண்டுகளாக, பகத்சிங்கை இந்தியாவின் முகமாக காட்டும் ஒரு வழக்கம் வளர்ந்துள்ளது. அதே நேரம் தேசியம் குறித்த அவரின் பார்வை அந்த அளவிற்கு பேசப்படுவதில்லை.

சுரண்டலிலிருந்து விடுதலை

வெறும் இருபது வயதே நிரம்பிய நிலையில் சர்வதேச நட்புறவை பேசிய பகத்சிங் போன்ற ஒரு இளைஞனை நாம் காண்பது அரிது. விடுதலை போராட்ட வரலாற்று நாயகர்களிலேயே இத்தகைய விசால பார்வை கொண்ட நபர் பகத்சிங்காகத்தான் இருக்கும்.

பகத்சிங் வெறும் தேசபக்தர் மட்டுமல்ல. சுதந்திர இந்தியா பன்முகம் கொண்ட, பொதுவுடமை சமூகமாக இருக்க வேண்டும் என்கிற பார்வையை கொண்டிருந்தார். தேசத்தின் மேல்தட்டில் உள்ள இரண்டு சதத்தினரால் ஆட்சி செய்யப்படாமல், 98 சதவீதமான எளிய மக்களால் இந்தியா ஆளப்பட வேண்டும் என்று எண்ணினார்.

அவருடைய “விடுதலை” என்கிற முழக்கம் வெறும் பிரிட்டிஷாரிடமிருந்தான விடுதலையை மட்டும் குறிக்கவில்லை. அது வறுமையிலிருந்து விடுதலை, தீண்டாமையிலிருந்து விடுதலை, மத மோதல்களிலிருந்து விடுதலை, அனைத்து விதமான பாகுபாடுகளிலிருந்தும், சுரண்டலிலிருந்துமான விடுதலை என்பதை உள்ளடங்கியதாக இருந்தது. பகத்சிங் தூக்கிலிடப்படுவதற்கு சரியாக இருபது நாட்களுக்கு முன்பாக 1931 மார்ச் 3ம் தேதி இளைஞர்களுக்கு அவர் அனுப்பிய செய்தியில்.. “தங்களுடைய சுய லாபத்திற்காக சாதாரண ஏழை உழைப்பாளர்களை சுரண்டும் கூட்டம் இருக்கும் வரை இந்தியாவில் அதற்கெதிரான போராட்டம் தொடரும். சுரண்டுபவர்கள் பிரிட்டிஷாராக இருந்தாலும், பிரிட்டிஷ் – இந்தியர்கள் கூட்டாக இருந்தாலும், அல்லது இந்தியர்களாகவே மட்டும் இருந்தாலும் சுரண்டலுக்கு எதிரான அப்போராட்டம் தொடரும்” என்றார்.

புரட்சி – முதலாளித்துவத்திற்கான சாவு மணி

பகத்சிங் முழங்கிய இன்குலாப் என்பது வெறும் அரசியல் புரட்சியை மட்டும் குறிக்கவில்லை. பழைய சமூக பாகுபாடுகளை உடைத்தெறியும் சமூக விடுதலையையும் உள்ளடக்கியதாக அவரின் முழக்கம் இருந்தது.

“புரட்சி ஓங்குக” என்கிற அவர்களின் முழக்கம் வெறும் உணர்ச்சிவயப்பட்ட முழக்கமல்ல; உயர்ந்த சிந்தனையை உள்ளடக்கியது என்பதை “இந்துஸ்தான் சோஷலிஸ்ட் ரிபப்ளிக் அசோசியேஷன்” சார்பில் வெளியிடப்பட்ட “வெடிகுண்டின் தத்துவம்” என்கிற பிரசுரம் எடுத்துக்காட்டும்.

“புரட்சி முதலாளித்துவத்திற்கும், வர்க்க வேறுபாட்டிற்கும், சாவு மணி அடிக்கும். அது ஒரு புதிய சமூக முறைமையை கொண்ட புதிய அரசை உருவாக்கும்” என்று அப்பிரசுரத்தில் குறிப்பிடுகின்றனர்.

அதேநேரம் “புரட்சி என்பது வெடிகுண்டுகள் மற்றும் துப்பாக்கிகளின் கலாச்சாரம் அல்ல. அநீதிகளை அடிப்படையாக கொண்ட தற்போதைய நிலைமைகளை மாற்றுவதையே நாங்கள் புரட்சி என்கிறோம்” என்று 1929 ஜூன் 6 ஆம் தேதி பகத்சிங் நீதிமன்றத்தில் உறுதியாக தெரிவிக்கிறார்.

புரட்சி என்பது அராஜகவாதத்திற்கானதல்ல; அது சமூக நீதிக்கானது. இந்தியாவில் நிலவும் சமூக, அரசியல், பொருளாதார நிலையை ஒழித்து ஒரு புதிய சகாப்தத்தை படைப்பதே புரட்சி என்றும், அதுவே தங்களது இலக்கு என்றும் இந்துஸ்தான் சோசலிஸ்ட் ரிபப்ளிக்கன் அசோசியேஷன் முன்வைத்தது.

இவைகளை எல்லாம் கருத்திலே கொள்ளாமல், அவர்களின் தீவிரமான சமூக திட்டங்களை எல்லாம் ஒதுக்கிவிட்டு பகத்சிங் மற்றும் அவரின் தோழர்களை வெறும் உணர்வு ரீதியான தேசபக்தர்களாகவும், காலனிய எதிர்ப்பாளர்களாகவும் மட்டும் பலர் சித்தரிப்பது சரியானதுமல்ல; முழுமையானதுமல்ல. சமூகம், அரசியல் குறித்த பகத்சிங்கின் எழுத்துக்களும், சாதி, வகுப்புவாதம் மொழி, அரசியல் பற்றிய அவரது பார்வையும், அவரின் அறிவார்ந்த சிந்தனையை எடுத்துக்காட்டும்.

“மார்க்சும், லெனினுமே பகத்சிங்கின் அரசியல் குருக்கள். அவருக்கு சோசலிசம் மீது உறுதியான நம்பிக்கை இருந்தது” என்கிறார் பகத்சிங்கின் நெருங்கிய தோழர் ஜெய்தேவ் கப்பூர். சுதந்திர இந்தியா மதச்சார்பற்ற, பொதுவுடைமை சமூகமாக இருக்க வேண்டுமென்றே அவர் கனவு கண்டார்.

பத்திரிக்கையின் பணி

“கீர்த்தி” இதழில் 1928ல் மே மாதம் எழுதிய “மதமும் நமது சுதந்திர போராட்டமும்” என்கிற கட்டுரையை பகத்சிங் எழுதியுள்ளார். அதில் அரசியலில் மதத்தின் பங்கு பற்றி அவர் குறிப்பிட்டிருப்பது இன்றும் நாம் இதன் ஆபத்தை எதிர்கொண்டு வருகிறோம்.

நம்பிக்கைகளை மத வழிபாட்டுடன் இணைத்த தத்துவமாக மதம் இருந்தால் அது உடனடியாக அகற்றப்பட வேண்டிய ஒன்று என்றும், மனிதனின் அடிப்படை தேவைகளை கொண்ட தத்துவமாக மதம் இருப்பின் அதற்கு ஒரு அர்த்தமுண்டு என்றும் அக்கட்டுரையில் பகத்சிங் குறிப்பிடுகிறார். மேலும், வழிபாட்டு முறைகளே தீண்டப்படுவோர், தீண்டப்படாதோர் என்கிற பிரிவினையை உருவாக்குகிறது.

இத்தகைய குறுகிய சிந்தனை கொண்ட மதத்தால் நம்மிடையே ஒற்றுமையை கொண்டுவர இயலாது.

நமக்கு விடுதலை என்பது பிரிட்டிஷ் காலனியத்திடமிருந்து மட்டுமான விடுதலை அல்ல. சாதி, மத தடைகளை கடந்து அனைவரும் இணைந்து வாழும் மகிழ்ச்சியான வாழ்க்கையே முழுமையான விடுதலைக்கான அர்த்தம் என்கிறார் பகத்சிங்.

“பத்திரிக்கையின் பணி என்பது மக்களுக்கு கற்பிப்பதாகும். குறுகிய பிரிவினைவாதம், வகுப்புவாத உணர்வு இவைகளிலிருந்து மக்களை தெளிவுபடுத்தி உண்மையான தேசிய உணர்வை மக்களிடம் அது உருவாக்கிட வேண்டும். ஆனால் அவை மக்கள் மத்தியில் அறியாமையையும், ஆதிக்கத்தையும், பிரிவினையையும், வகுப்புவாதத்தையும் பரப்பி நமது பன்முக கலாச்சாரத்தையும், ஒன்றுபட்டு வளர்த்த பாரம்பரியத்தையும் அழிக்கிறது” என்று பகத்சிங் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளது இன்றும் பொருந்துகிறது.

சக மனிதனை சமமாக மதிக்காதது மதமா?

1928 ஜூன் மாதம் பகத்சிங் எழுதிய “தீண்டாதோர் குறித்து” மற்றும் “வகுப்புவாத மோதலும் அதற்கான தீர்வுகளும்” என்ற இரண்டு கட்டுரைகள் இன்றும் இந்த பிரச்சனைகள் குறித்து மிக சிறிய அளவே கவனம் செலுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது என்பதை காட்டுகிறது.

“ஆறு கோடி இந்திய பிரஜைகளை தீண்டப்படாதவர் என்று கூறும் தனித்தன்மை வாய்ந்த நாடாக நமது நாடு உள்ளது. அவர்கள் கோவிலுக்குள் சென்றால் கடவுள் தீட்டாகிவிடுவார் என்று இந்த இருபதாம் நூற்றாண்டிலும் கூறுவதெல்லாம் வெட்கக்கேடானதாகும். ஆன்மீக நாடு என்று பெருமை பேசும் நாம்தான் சக மனிதனை சமமாக பார்க்க தெரியாமல் உள்ளோம். பொருள்முதல்வாதம் பேசும் ஐரோப்பா நூற்றாண்டுகளாக புரட்சிகர செயல்களை பேசுகிறது.

அமெரிக்க, பிரெஞ்ச் புரட்சியின் போதே அவர்கள் சமத்துவத்தை முன்வைத்துவிட்டனர். ஆனால் நாமோ இன்றும் தீண்டத்தகாதவர்கள் பூணூல் அணிய உரிமை உண்டா? வேதத்தை அவர்கள் வாசிக்க அனுமதிக்கலாமா? என்று விவாதித்துக்கொண்டுள்ளோம்”.

“மிருகங்களை விட மோசமாக அவர்களை நடத்தினால், அவர்கள் தங்களை மனிதர்களாக மதித்து நடத்தும் மாற்று மதத்தில் கட்டாயம் சேர்வார்கள். ஆனால் இது கிறிஸ்தவமும், இஸ்லாமும் இந்துயிசத்தை தாக்குவதாக குற்றம் சாட்டப்படுகிறது” என்று விமர்சன பார்வையோடே அன்றைய மத நிறுவனங்களின் செயல்பாடுகளை அவர் பார்த்தார்.

உண்மையான மதச்சார்பின்மை

1926ல் லாகூரில் பகத்சிங் உருவாக்கிய நவ ஜவான் பாரத் சபாவில் இணைபவர்களிடம் “தனது சொந்த சமூகத்திற்கும் மேலாக தேச நலனை முன்னிறுத்துவேன்” என்கிற உறுதிமொழி பெறப்பட்டது. இது 1920 களில் மத ரீதியான அணி சேர்க்கையை தீவிரமாக மேற்கொண்ட ஆர்.எஸ்.எஸ். செயல்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருந்த காலத்தில் இந்த இளைஞர் கூட்டம் இப்படி சிந்தித்து செயல்பட்டது குறிப்பிடத் தகுந்ததாகும்.

அதிதீவிர தேசியவாதத்தின் வலுவானதாக விளங்கிய லாலா லஜபதிராய் இந்து மகா சபையுடன் கைகோர்த்தபோது அவரையும் இந்த இளைஞர் கூட்டம் கடுமையாக சாடியது. “பஞ்சாப் இளைஞர்களுக்கு ஒரு வேண்டுகோள்” என்ற பிரசுரத்தில் லஜபதிராயை துரோகி என்று விமர்சித்து கேதர்நாத் சேகர் எழுதினார். பகத்சிங் ஒரு ரஷ்ய ஏஜெண்ட் என்றும், லெனினைப் போல் தன்னை ஆக்கிக் கொள்ள பார்க்கிறார் என்றும் லஜபதிராய் எதிர்வினையாற்றினார்.

பகத்சிங்கும் அவரது இயக்கமும் மத நல்லிணக்கத்தையே தங்களின் மையமான அரசியல் பொருளாக கொண்டிருந்தனர். காங்கிரஸ் தங்களின் மதச்சார்பின்மையை வெளிப்படுத்திக் கொள்ள “அல்லா உ அக்பர், சத் ஸ்ரீ அகால் (கடவுளே உண்மை -சீக்கியர்கள் சொல்வது) வந்தேமாதரம் என்று கூறி வந்தனர். இதற்கு மாறாக அந்த இளைஞர்கள் “புரட்சி ஓங்குக, இந்துஸ்தான் ஓங்குக” என்றே முழங்கினர்.

தேசப்பிரிவினைக்கே ஊக்கமளித்த வகுப்புவாத போக்கை ஊக்குவிக்கும் கொள்கைகளை பகத்சிங் கேள்வி எழுப்பினார். அரசிலிருந்தும், அரசியலிலிருந்தும் மதத்தை ஒதுக்கி வைப்பதே உண்மையான மதச்சார்பின்மை என்பதை வலியுறுத்தும் நவீன தேசிய தலைவர்களின் வரிசையில் பகத்சிங் முன்னணியில் உள்ளார்.

சிறந்த அரசியல் சிந்தனையாளர்

பகத்சிங் தூக்கிலிடப்படுவதற்கு முன்பு சிறையில் இருந்த இரண்டாண்டுகள் அவரை சிறந்த அரசியல் சிந்தனையாளராக மாற்றியது. அவரின் அரசியல் பரிணாமத்தை சிறை குறிப்புகளே எடுத்துக்காட்டும். அது அவரின் வாசிப்பு பழக்கத்தையும், மார்க்ஸ், ஏங்கல்ஸ், பெட்ராண்ட் ரசூல், டி.பெயின், அப்டன் சிங்க்ளர், லெனின், வில்லியம் வேர்ட்ஸ்வேர்த், டென்னிசன், தாகூர், புக்காரின்,
டிராட்ஸ்கி போன்ற தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட ஆசிரியர்களின் நூல் வரிசையும் தெளிவுப்படுத்துகிறது. அவரின் சிறந்த புத்தகங்களின் ஒன்றான “நான் நாத்திகன் ஏன்?” என்கிற புத்தகமும் சிறையில் எழுதப்பட்டதே.

மதம் என்பது சுரண்டுபவர்களிடம் உள்ள ஒரு ஆயுதம். தங்களின் சுயநலனுக்காக கடவுளின் பெயரை சொல்லி பயம் ஏற்படுத்தி வெகுஜனத்தை ஆட்டி வைக்கின்றனர் என்று பகத்சிங் மிகத்தெளிவாகவேஉணர்ந்திருந்தார் என்கிறார் அவரின் நெருங்கிய தோழர் மன்மதநாத் குப்தா. பசி கொண்ட வயிற்றிற்கு மதமும், வெற்று மத போதனைகளாலும் எந்த பயனுமில்லை. அவர்களுக்கு உணவே கடவுள் என்பதை இந்துஸ்தான் சோஷலிஸ்ட் ரிபப்ளிக் அசோசியேஷனில் உள்ள அனைவரும் உணர்ந்தே இருந்தனர்.

“பட்டினியால் வாடும் வயிற்றை நிரப்ப மீன்பிடிப்பவனுக்கும், குளிர்கால இரவில், சாலையின் ஓரத்தில் இருக்க இடம் தேடுபவனுக்கும் கடவுளும், அறநெறியும் வெறும் வார்த்தைகளே” என்கிற ஓரஸ் கிரீலியின் வரிகளை தனது சிறை குறிப்பில் எழுதி வைத்திருந்தார் பகத்சிங்.

அந்த காலக்கட்டத்தில் அறிவியல் பூர்வமான அணுகுமுறையோடு இந்துஸ்தான் சோஷலிஸ்ட் ரிபப்ளிக் அசோசியேஷன் வளர்ந்திருந்தது. அதிலிருந்த பலர் சோஷலிச, கம்யூனிச கருத்து நிலையோடு மிக நெருங்கி வந்திருந்தனர். தனி நபர் பயங்கரவாதத்தை விட மக்கள் இயக்கமே அவசியம் என்பதையும் உணர்ந்திருந்தனர்.

சமூக மற்றும் பொருளாதார நீதியை முன்வைத்த பகத்சிகின் மாற்று அரசு குறித்த கனவை நாம் மிகுந்த பெருமிதத்தோடு நினைவு கூற வேண்டும். உலகமய சூழலில் அவர் சொன்ன சோஷலிசத்தின் பால் பலர் ஈர்ப்புடன் இல்லாவிட்டாலும், சமூக பொருளாதார ரீதியாக பின்தங்கிய நிலையில் உள்ளவர்கள் பற்றி அவர் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ள அம்சங்களில் கூடுதல் கவனம் அவசியம் என்பதை இன்றைய நிலையும் வலியுறுத்துகிறது. குறுகிய சாதிய, மதவாத மனோநிலையிலிருந்து வெளியேறி, மேன்மையான ஒன்றை உருவாக்குவது என்கிற பகத்சிங்கின் எண்ணத்தை நிறைவேற்ற வேண்டிய மிக சிக்கலான காலத்தில் நாம் உள்ளோம். இதை மனதில் கொண்டு செயலாற்ற வேண்டியுள்ளது.

(2017 அக்டோபர் – டிசம்பர் மாத மார்க்சிஸ்ட் ஆங்கில இதழில் இர்ஃபான் ஹபீப் எழுதிய கட்டுரையின் சுருக்கம்)

Bhagat Singh A Shared Revolutionary Legacy Between India and Pakistan

Irfan Habib

It was indeed heartening to know that Pakistan called Bhagat Singh a shared hero of both the countries. Zahid Saeed, the Chief Secretary of Punjab government proclaimed that ‘Bhagat Singh was the Independence movement hero of both India and Pakistan. The people of the country have the right to know about his (Singh) and his comrades’ great struggle to get freedom from the British Raj.’[1] I am not surprised by the decision as I have personally experienced the love and veneration for Bhagat Singh and his ideals during my few visits to Lahore. However, it may be one of the rare acknowledgements from a high government official of Pakistan. Let us talk about his vision, which makes him acceptable to both the countries simultaneously, a vision which he envisaged for an independent India and which remains relevant for both the countries even now. It was not a narrow jingoistic vision but an internationalist one, where Bhagat Singh spoke for the oppressed and colonized societies beyond South Asia.

Bhagat Singh is valorized for his martyrdom, and rightly so, but in the ensuing enthusiasm most of us forget, or consciously ignore his contributions as an intellectual and a thinker. He not only sacrificed his life, like many did before him and also after him, but he also had an idea of independent India. During the past few years, it has almost become a routine to appropriate Bhagat Singh as a nationalist icon, while not much is talked about his nationalist vision.

Bhagat Singh is probably the only one from amongst our freedom struggle heroes, who can be celebrated by both-India and Pakistan. It is possible because he stood for a non-sectarian and egalitarian world. He never espoused any divisive idea in his short life. And it is possible to make sense of his politics because he left behind a substantial written legacy to engage with. It is rare to find a young man in his early twenties conceiving an idea of universal brotherhood and articulating it in a detailed article. May be he was the only one among our freedom struggle heroes who had this vision.

Bhagat Singh was not just a patriot, with a passionate commitment to his nation, he was a visionary, with a pluralist and egalitarian perception of independent India.He visualized an India where 98 percent will rule instead of elite 2 percent.[2] His azaadi was not limited to the leaving of the British, instead he desired azaadi from poverty, azaadi from untouchability, azaadi from communal strife and azaadi from any other discrimination/exploitation. Just twenty days before his martyrdom on 3 March 1931 Bhagat Singh sent out an explicit message to the youth saying:

. . . the struggle in India would continue so long as a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of the common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capitalists, or British and Indians in alliance, or even purely Indians.

Bhagat Singh was committed to Inquilab or revolution but it was not merely a political revolution he aimed at. He wanted a social revolution to break the age old discriminatory practices.This Inquilab Zindabad was not merely an emotional war cry for the revolutionaries but had a lofty ideal which was explained by the HSRA thus:

The Revolution will ring the death knell of capitalism and class distinction and privileges . . . It will give birth to a new state – a new social order.[3]

Bhagat Singh was even more definitive in his statement in the court on June 6, 1929. He said: Revolution is not a culture of bomb and pistol. Our meaning of revolution is to change the present conditions, which are based on manifest injustice.[4]

Bhagat Singh agrees with a quote he cites in his prison diary, which says a radical revolution is not utopian, ‘What is utopian is the idea of a partial, an exclusively political revolution, which would leave the pillars of the house standing.’[5] The HSRA aimed at such a revolution which would usher in a new era, demolishing the existing socio-economic and political structure of the Indian society. Their revolution was not for anarchy or lawlessness but for social justice.

However, most of the eulogies have ignored this radical social programme of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, projecting them merely as passionate anti-colonialists and nationalists, which is not inaccurate, but incomplete. Bhagat Singh went to the gallows as a nationalist is not something exclusive to him alone, two others were hanged with him and many more were hanged before him as nationalists. He is different because he left behind an intellectual legacy, a huge collection of political and social writings on burning issues of even contemporary importance like caste, communalism, language, and politics. In his short life, Bhagat Singh had grown as an intellectual about whom his close comrade Jaidev Kapoor said that he regarded Karl Marx and Lenin as his political gurus and guides. He had unshakable faith in socialism.[6]

Bhagat Singh not only set high standards as a great martyr, he also left behind a rich legacy as a journalist who worked for Kirti, Arjun and Pratap, well known papers of their times. We know a little about his vocation as a scribe and the issues he dealt with in his articles. These focused on the various aspects of the nationalist struggle, combating communalism, untouchability, students and politics, world brotherhood etc.

Bhagat Singh did not merely wish to free India from colonial bondage but dreamt of independent India, which would be egalitarian and secular. This was reflected in his revolutionary activities as well as in his commitment as a sensitive journalist. I will refer briefly to both his vocations and intellectual commitments. We also need to know that Bhagat Singh was a voracious reader, who devoured anything new which was published on poverty, religion, society and global struggles against imperialism. He seriously debated and discussed what he read and also wrote extensively on issues of caste, communalism and conditions of the working class and peasantry.

The profundity of his ideas on some of the above mentioned issues is visible in his regular columns in Kirti, Pratap and other papers. In an article on ‘Religion and our freedom struggle’ published in Kirti in May 1928, Bhagat Singh grappled with the role of religion in politics, an issue that haunts us even today. He talked of Tolstoy’s division of religion into three parts: essentials of religion, philosophy of religion and rituals of religion. He concluded that if religion means blind faith by mixing rituals with philosophy then it should be blown away immediately but if we can combine essentials with some philosophy then religion may be a meaningful idea. He felt that ritualism of religions had divided us into touchables and untouchables and these narrow and divisive religions cannot bring about actual unity among people. For us freedom should not mean mere end of British colonialism, our complete freedom implies living together happily without caste and religious barriers.Bhagat Singh needs to be invoked even today to bring about changes he yearned for. Expressing his anguish in the second article, he held some of the political leaders and the press responsible for inciting communalism. He believed that ‘there were a few sincere leaders, but their voice is easily swept away by the rising wave of communalism. In terms of political leadership, India had gone totally bankrupt’.

Bhagat Singh felt that journalism used to be a noble profession, which had now fallen from grace. Now they give bold and sensational headlines to incite people to kill each other in the name of religion. There were riots at several places simply because the local press behaved irresponsibly and indulged in rabble-rousing through their articles. Not much seems to have changed since Bhagat Singh wrote these lines. He categorically spelt out the duties of journalists and then also accused them of dereliction of this duty.  He wrote that:

the real duty of the newspapers is to educate, to cleanse the minds of people, to save them from narrow sectarian divisiveness, and to eradicate communal feelings to promote the idea of common nationalism. Instead, their main objective seems to be spreading ignorance, preaching and propagating sectarianism and chauvinism, communalizing people’s minds leading to the destruction of our composite culture and shared heritage.

In the June 1928 issue of the Kirti, Bhagat Singh wrote two articles titled Achoot ka Sawaal (On Untouchability) and Sampradayik Dangeaurunka Ilaj (Communal riots and their solutions). What Bhagat Singh wrote in 1928   looks relevant even today, which unfortunately proves how precious little has been done to resolve these questions. In the first piece, Bhagat Singh starts by saying that:

our country is unique where six crore citizens are called untouchables and their mere touch defiles the upper castes. Gods get enraged if they enter the temples. It is shameful that such things are being practised in the twentieth century. We claim to be a spiritual country but hesitate to accept equality of all human beings while materialist Europe is talking of revolution since centuries. They had proclaimed equality during the American and French revolutions. However, we are still debating whether the untouchable is entitled for the sacred thread or can he read the Vedas or not. We are chagrined about discrimination against Indians in foreign lands, and whine that the English do not give us equal rights in India.

Given our conduct, Bhagat Singh wondered, do we really have any right to complain about such matters?

He also seriously engaged with the possible solutions to this malaise. The first decision for all of us should be:

that we start believing that we all are born equal and our vocation, as well, need not divide us. If someone is born in a sweeper’s family that does not mean that he/she has to continue in the family profession cleaning shit all his life, with no right to participate in any developmental work.

For him, this discrimination was directly responsible for conversions, which was a burning issue even in the 1920s. Despite his anti-colonialist fervour, he did not just condemn the missionaries nor did he instigate Hindus to kill and burn all those who had accepted the new faith. He wrote self-critically:

If you treat them worse than animals then they will surely join other religions where they will get more rights and will be treated like human beings. In this situation it will be futile to accuse Christianity and Islam of harming Hinduism.

Bhagat Singh was convinced that ‘no one would be forced or tempted to change faith if the age old inequalities are removed and we sincerely start believing that we are all equal and none is different either due to birth or vocation’.

Bhagat Singh institutionalised his thinking, when he founded the Naujawan Bharat Sabha in 1926 in Lahore, which was also a public platform for the otherwise secret group of revolutionaries. He saw to it that the Sabha remains above petty religious politics of the times. It is all the more important because the 1920s saw the emergence of the RSS, which exacerbated the intense communal polarisation. But here was a group of young men who were thinking differently. They asked the member before enrolment ‘to sign a pledge that he would place the interests of his country above those of his community’. Even Lala Lajpat Rai, the eminent pillar of extremist nationalism in India could not escape from the scathing criticism of the Sabha when he joined hands with the Hindu Mahasabha leaders. Rai was dubbed as a traitor by Kedar Nath Sehgal in a pamphlet ‘An Appeal to Young Punjab’ while Lajpat Rai responded by calling Bhagat Singh a Russian agent who wanted to make him into a Lenin.

Bhagat Singh and his Sabha regarded communal amity as central to their political agenda but like the Congress, it did not believe either in the appeasement of all religions or in raising such slogans as Allah o Akbar, Sat Sri Akal and Bande Mataram to prove their secularism. On the contrary, they raised just two slogans, Inquilab Zindabad and Hindustan Zindabad, hailing the revolution and the country. Bhagat Singh questioned the policy of encouraging competing communalisms, which ultimately led to the partition of the country in 1947. He stands out in bold relief as a modern national leader and thinker emphasizing the separation of religion from politics and state as true secularism.

Bhagat Singh matured as a political thinker while in prison during the two years he spent there before he was hanged on 23 March, 1931. His prison diary clearly reveals the trajectory of his political evolution. It brings into light his reading habits and the wide range of the selection of authors including Marx, Engels, Bertrand Russell, T. Paine, Upton Sinclair, V. I. Lenin, William Wordsworth, Tennyson, Rabindra Nath Tagore, Bukharin, Trotsky, among others. One of the most profound articles by him called ‘Why I am an Atheist’ was written while he was in jail. The article was tinged with a strong rebuttal of blind faith and a zealous defence of reason. Before dealing with his own views about religion, Bhagat Singh first deals with the religiosity of his predecessors. He points out that in the absence of a scientific understanding of their own political activity; they needed irrational religious beliefs and mysticism to sustain them spiritually, to fight against personal temptation, to overcome depression, to be able to sacrifice their physical comforts, and even life. For this a person requires deep sources of inspiration. This requirement was, in the case of early revolutionaries, met by mysticism and religion.[7]

He made clear that the revolutionaries now need no religious inspiration as they have an advanced revolutionary ideology, based on reason instead of blind faith. About God, Bhagat Singh writes:

He (God) was to serve as a father, mother, sister and brother, friend and helper . . . so that when man be in great distress having been betrayed and deserted by all friends, he may find consolation in the idea that an ever true friend was still there to help him, to support him and that He was Almighty and could do anything. Really that was useful to a society in the primitive age. The idea of God is helpful to man in distress.[8]

Bhagat Singh was convinced that religion is a tool in the hands of exploiters who keep the masses in constant fear of God for their own interests.[9] The revolutionaries of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) realized that all moral ideals and religions were useless for an empty stomach and for him only food was God. He aptly quoted Horace Greeley in his prison diary saying ‘Morality and religion are but words to him who fishes in gutters for the means of sustaining life, and crouches behind barrels in the street for shelter from the cutting blasts of a winter night.’[10]

This scientific approach of the HSRA leaders matured with the passage of time. The majority of them came close to the ideals of socialism or even communism, which believed in mass action instead of individual acts of terrorism.

We should remember Bhagat Singh with pride and reflect on the alternative framework of governance he had in mind where social and economic justice – and not terrorism or violence – would be supreme. Many of us may not find his commitment to socialism very attractive in the changing era of globalization, yet his concern for the socio-economically deprived sections still commands attention. Moreover, his passionate desire to rise above narrow caste and religious considerations was never as crucial as it is today.

Bhagat Singh’s revolutionary legacy needs to be remembered in these rancorous times, both in India and Pakistan. He fought most of his battles, intellectual as well as otherwise, in Lahore, till he was hanged on the outskirts of the city. Singh’s intellectual inheritance is our collective memory and should not be divided by political borders.

[1]       Indian Express, March 27, 2018.

[2]       Cited in S. Irfan Habib, To Make the Deaf Hear, 2007, New Delhi.

[3]       The Philosophy of the Bomb.

[4]       Suresh, Krantikari Bhagat Singh, Delhi, 1971, pp. 91-92.

[5]       Quoted in the Jail Notebook of Bhagat Singh, LeftWord Books, 2007.

[6]       Jaidev Kapoor, ‘Amar Balidani Bhagwati Bhai’, in Himanshu Joshi, ed, Utsarg, Lucknow, 1980, p. 65.

[7]       The People, Lahore, September 27, 1931.

[8]       Bhagat Singh, ‘Why I am an atheist’.

[9]       Interview with Manmathnath Gupta, close associate of Bhagat Singh, who died few years ago.

[10]      The Jail Notebook of Bhagat Singh.

Marxist, XXXIII, 4, October-December 2017

Intellectual Property, Knowledge, Capital and Labour

Dinesh Abrol

Intellectual property (IP) is a term that denotes several distinct bodies of law related to the protection of private ownership of knowledge and information[i]. It includes the laws of protection of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, database rights, protection for semiconductor topographies, plant breeders’ rights, protection for indications of geographic origins and rights in performances. In this body of law, many important legal benefits accrue to the owners of intellectual property. The owners of intellectual property can deny others the use of knowledge and information for a given period provided by statues. The owners can charge rent for use, receive compensation for loss and demand payment for transfer of knowledge.

IP laws have been strengthened over the period. Contemporary laws favour a stronger system of intellectual property that provides for a system of wider set of constraints on use and a broader exclusion of access to others. It covers now all types of knowledge-working, scientific, technological, cultural and so on. Intellectual property monopolies are uniformly of longer durations. A stronger intellectual property system has been provided a global reach through the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. The law of patents provides a uniform period of monopoly for twenty years. The law of copyrights gives a monopoly of fifty years or more.

A stronger IP system under enforcement through the TRIPs Agreement implies extending the term of protection, expanding the scope of protectable subject matter, increased penalties for violation, facilitating enforcement and expediting litigation. The purpose is to strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IPR infringements through specialized commercial courts. Intellectual property rights are formidable legal barriers to competition.

Several justifications are provided for the need for intellectual property. Advocates argue that incentive is needed to encourage further effort; inventors deserve property in the fruits of their labour and intellectual property is important to ensure both natural right and efficiency. But for Marxists, there is nothing ‘natural’ about property. Property formation is an ideological and material process and there is always an attempt to obscure the political acts that produce property norms and property regimes. The power relations that organize property form(s) of public, private and commons in knowledge production are hidden in the legal details, which Capital accesses from the nation state (s) through the efforts of lawyers and lobbyists.

More recently the capitalist character of the contemporary narrative is under use for the justification of intellectual property. These claims include the benefits of introduction of markets into knowledge production; efficient use of knowledge and information requires private property in knowledge; markets in knowledge and information ensure more and better innovation; little stimulus would exist for innovation without intellectual property; innovators must be incentivized and rewarded to commercialize knowledge; innovators require private monopolies to obtain the return on investment; progress in science and technology depends on the existence of markets in knowledge supported by stronger IP.

Capital provides these justifications to accelerate the pace and intensity of capital accumulation through the creation of private ownership of knowledge and innovation. Capital is able to impose scarcity in relation to possible use of knowledge even when there is no actual scarcity of knowledge resources. In the recent times, the globalized system of enforcement of laws of intellectual property is on the rise and is structured through the power of monopoly, finance and informational capital across the nations. Presently the benefit of strengthening of IPRs is mostly accruing to the fractions of monopoly, finance and informational capital originating from United States, Europe and Japan. (May and Sell 2006).

Thus, for Marxists there lies hidden the story of commodification of knowledge and information in the intellectual property laws.[ii] Historically the production of knowledge has not taken place in the market, but rather in guilds, universities, religious bodies and state institutions. The production of knowledge was rewarded through patronage, prestige, prizes, or income tied to rank or status rather than to economic performance. In Medieval world, knowledge was often interpreted as a gift from God, and for this reason ideas were seen as inappropriate objects of property. This changed through the rise of capitalism and possessive individualism. Patents and other forms of intellectual property rights are seen as legal devices in the service of the process of commodification of knowledge. In the case of knowledge, royalties that can be defined as the market price for the right to use patented knowledge. Universities can sell and license their patents to corporations and establish external sources of revenue in the form of royalty payments.

Knowledge as commodity can exist and acquire different commodity forms, Jessop (2007: 122-125) has argued that knowledge can circulate in various ways. Knowledge can circulate as intellectual commons. In this case knowledge has a non-commodity status especially if it is produced and distributed through non-market mechanism (e.g. patronage). Knowledge is a fictitious commodity when it is enclosed through non-market mechanisms and circulate as private property within the market. Knowledge becomes a quasi-commodity when knowledge production (intellectual labour) is formally subsumed under capitalist control and competition. Knowledge becomes a real capitalist commodity when the real subsumption of intellectual labour takes place, i.e. when knowledge is subsumed under capitalist labour process. Knowledge may also become a form of fictitious or fictive capital when revenue streams to knowledge producers (e.g. universities) are guaranteed by intellectual property rights.

Marx, himself, foresaw under capitalism the advancement of enclosure of knowledge accelerating through the processes of primitive accumulation of capital as well as dynamic of capital accumulation. Knowledge can circulate in various ways within and between social systems. Ample evidence exists of how through the processes of primitive accumulation of capital and dynamic of capital accumulation, commodification of knowledge proceeded first in a slow and gradual way, and then rapidly under 20th Century capitalism. Personal and technological forms of surveillance in the production process are necessary elements of the capitalist economy (Fuchs, 2012: 14). Commodification of knowledge is a process that is contributing to the increased surveillance of academic labour since this process is able to enhance corporations’ accumulation of capital in knowledge capitalism. Commodification of knowledge and related integration between universities and market forces requires the direct as well as ideological control of employee behaviour within higher education institutions. Academic labour is increasingly getting subjected to the discipline and logic of accumulation in which monopoly, finance and informational capital are important actors.

Evidence also exists of how even under capitalism progress in science and technology could occur without the creation of private property in knowledge and information. There exist mechanisms of government patronage, prizes and procurement to continue with the progress in production of knowledge (Mazzucato, 2014). Societies need not depend upon the introduction of markets in knowledge production. The markets for knowledge have been organized and provided social legitimacy in the capitalist society through the narrative that ‘knowledge produced for sale’ is efficient. The truth is that the fiction of ‘knowledge has to be produced as commodity’ allows the monopoly capital to gain a foothold in knowledge production and distribution process.

This article discusses how intellectual property laws have been constructed to legally achieve private appropriation (misappropriation) of the collectively produced knowledge. The analysis brings out how the co-evolving processes have been advancing the real subsumption of mental and manual labour to capital in the field of knowledge production and creating the dynamics of generation and dissipation of rents. The article also brings out the self-defeating character of the commodification process even from capital’s own perspective. Commodification and accumulation are co-evolving which pose contradictions for capital through the process of commodification of nature or other aspects of social existence which results in social inequality and polarization within and across nations. This also shows how the history of shift from international to global governance of intellectual property protection in favour of stronger intellectual property is not without contestation. It suggests that the hope for the construction of a system of knowledge production without property is still alive.

Intellectual property, labour and capital

To contemporary minds, the notion that an employer (often a corporation) owns or controls various types of intellectual property of its employees is a legal reality. Fisk (2009) demonstrates how this modern legal reality of employer ownership of intellectual property is a relatively recent development. The legal doctrine that came to privilege employer ownership of intellectual property remains contested. Fisk reasons that modern intellectual property has also been a creature of employment law and practice. The term “intellectual property” was first used in a published judicial opinion in 1845 in the United States. The process of this shift was slow and gradual and extended from the late 19th to late 20th century. Corporate ownership of workplace knowledge came into existence as employment shifted from being a relationship where legal obligations were determined primarily by status to being one where legal obligation (s) are determined by contract.

In an earlier article, Fisk (2003) shows that this development evolved in contradiction to earlier decisions or industrial practice that knowledge of most ordinary manufacturing processes came to be owned as the intellectual property of the employer[iii]. She observes that courts routinely held that an inventor was presumed to own his invention, regardless of his status as an employee roughly between 1840 and 1880. Fisk’s work on copyright law points out that the privileged employee authors created copyrighted works throughout much of the 19th century. Earlier contributions of Fisk (1998) develop a similar theme and look at the question of who owns patented invention created by an employee. Earlier the employers approached the problem of ownership of knowledge as the problem of property, normally concluding that inventive individuals owned the fruits of their labour.

In the US, during the nineteenth century, the legal device that accomplished the ends of the employers was the implied contract. Implied contracts permitted courts to reallocate economically valuable information in ways that seemed to them fair and efficient. By the early 20th century, the employers started patenting inventions by employees “hired to invent” even without any formal assignment from the employee. They could enforce a “shop right”, a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use invention by employees not hired to invent; demand invention assignments by independent contractors that effectively left them unable to work or consult elsewhere in their area of expertise; protect “trade secrets” that earlier generations had not recognized, such as ideas, general knowledge unreduced to written formula, and negative knowledge (that is what does not work); and enforce all these rights through negative injunctions forbidding former employees from taking specific jobs.

Benjamin and Weinstein (2009) also describe developments of the post-Second World War period briefly. Into the 1990s there has greatly expanded the scope of justifications of IP by employers’ in order to restrict employee mobility or an employee’s claim over inventions. For example, while courts retained the traditional formula under which “reasonable” covenants by employees not to compete would be enforced. The category of reasonable covenants expanded. In particular, negotiated covenants for “unreasonable” duration or geographic scope were increasingly rewritten by courts into reasonable form, and then enforced against the employee. A Uniform Trade Secrets Act came into existence in America. The other important act came to be introduced in 1980 in America in the form of Bayh-Dole Act that encouraged universities to claim as their own intellectual property the intellectual creations of university faculty (the Indian version of Bayh-Dole Act was sought to be introduced by the National Knowledge Commission[iv]; fortunately, there was enough resistance within the scientific community at that time, and the government failed then to impose it on the Indian university system).

A 1996 federal criminal statue, the Economic Espionage Act made most ordinary misappropriation of trade secrets into a criminal offence. The result of these and other developments is to make litigation a threat almost anytime an employee valued by employer attempts to leave for a competitor. Piracy is a term that has long been linked to claims of unauthorized uses of intellectual property. Drahos and Braithwaite(2002) show the significance of the rhetoric of piracy in political discourse concerning the development of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. Prior to the emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO) nations had no general duty to protect or enforce intellectual property rights within their borders.

Globalization of intellectual property

The increasingly global reach of intellectual property law and the neo-liberal assumptions embedded in it raise many important issues that need to be analysed. The first issue is the skewed distributive effects of the TRIPs Agreement on ‘have’ and ‘have not’ nations. The TRIPs Agreement permits intellectual property exporting nations to erode their rights extraterritorially. The Agreement erodes historic notions of territoriality and sovereignty, and disadvantages those developing nations which have very little proprietorship in knowledge resources and few resources to pay for essential intellectual property-protected goods.

The increasing global reach of intellectual property laws requires greater engagement with the challenge of formulation of strategies to protect a public domain that cannot be fully owned as intellectual property. The inequalities relating to the exploitation of intellectual property as a form of bio-colonialism or bio-piracy allow the developed nations to remove natural resources and discoveries out of developing nations as raw materials that can be manipulated and transformed into intellectual property with no recognition or economic benefit (See Keith Aoki, 1998).

Drahos and Braithwaite (2002) point out how the redistribution of intellectual property rights involves a transfer of knowledge assets from the intellectual commons into private interests, like media conglomerates and integrated life sciences corporations, rather than individual scientists and authors. The effect of this is to raise levels of private monopolistic power to dangerous global heights, at a time when states, which have been weakened by the forces of globalization, have a lesser capacity to protect their citizens from the consequences of the exercise of such power.

Consequences for formal and real subsumption of intellectual labour

These concerns are closely connected to the issue of the changing balance between protecting knowledge, innovation and creativity as private property versus disseminating it widely in for public use. The tension between these two can be captured in the concept of the ‘public domain, or sometimes, the ‘intellectual commons’ or ‘knowledge commons, which denotes areas of social life where public access is privileged over intellectual property rights. Because the expanded global reach of intellectual property protection threatens access to knowledge commons, free speech and democratic participation the process of intellectual labour is being made to appear as capital’s own process, and the capitalist is being designated as the “legitimate” owner of knowledge and information. As the owner of means of production used within the production of knowledge and purchaser of the labour power, capital is effectively becoming the manager of the processes of knowledge production.

‘Capital’ for Marxists refers to a social relation, namely that of waged labour employed in the production of commodities to be sold for a profit. With the ever-increasing penetration of the capital relation into knowledge production, intellectual property is actually creating a social possibility space for capital’s expansion. Intellectual property has a central role in the neoliberal project. A capitalist economy must expand continually if it is not to collapse, a consequence of the dynamics of self-interested investment upon which it depends. The dynamics of a capitalist economy and the production of profit are now far more dependent upon the spread and intensity of capital in the field of production of knowledge.

Today, IP is an important instrument of primitive accumulation in the hands of capital as it has allowed formal and real subsumption of all types of knowledge production throughout the world. Capital is excluding and displacing its costs to spaces such as the universities of both North and South. In the field of knowledge production, the process of formal subsumption of intellectual labour to capital includes the establishment of the wage labour relation. Universities are a terrain of contested development. In the publicly funded higher education institutions, academics are beginning to oppose the introduction of principles of new public management-intellectual technology of primitive accumulation. Academics are opposing the introduction of stronger intellectual property rights.

In the field of knowledge production, historically speaking, status competition and prestige distribution set limits and determined the value and price of labour. At the moment the meeting point is occurring within the well institutionalized habits and rules governing the pre-capitalist life of knowledge production. The process of formal and real subsumption of intellectual labour under capital is not yet complete. Capitalist domination of the sector of knowledge production requires the universities and publicly funded research institutions to introduce the latest versions of intellectual property. Recent developments suggest that status, competition and prestige do not pose intrinsic limits for capital. Success is possible because all or most scientific and technological research requires funding; it matters how it is funded and on what terms and conditions. The terms and conditions will have impact on the nature of the research itself (Szadowski, 2017).

Strategies for the control of research done by intellectual labour

It is possible to distinguish the practice of funding into five or six strategies which enable those paying for research to use and control the work of intellectual labour in the relevant sites of knowledge production. These strategies include 1.propertization (to maximize their control over every aspect of research and their rights over its utilization), 2. purchase (research commissioned by government agencies or private sector under project contracts), 3. prescription (the concentration and steering of research through the designation of centres of excellence, which, once established may enjoy a significant measure of independence), 4. persuasion and sponsorship (the identification of challenges and the encouragement of scientists and technologists to put forward proposals for research relating to the challenge), 5. pluralism (responsiveness to researcher demand) and 6. patronage (research was funded through patronage provided earlier by aristocrats, later by governments and now by new philanthropy represented in the funding of Gates Foundation, George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, the Reliance, the Tatas, the Aziz Premji Foundation, etc.).

The story of patronage has come to a full circle. There is very little space for curiosity-oriented research in the philanthropy-based funding of higher education institutions. The research funding of new philanthropies is devoted to creating a human face for capital. Funders use the contract system to purchase the labour power of researchers or knowledge production bringing the idea of commodification into the process of research. This means knowledge is a commodity that can be bought and sold or otherwise disposed of as the purchaser wishes. For example, the University of California(UC) attracts funding for biotechnology research by boasting that “UC means business” (Bridges, 2017).

However, it is also a fact that a system of hierarchy develops as soon as research is valued on the basis of its potential to create wealth. Funding is growing for research in the fields of biosciences, material sciences, information and communications technologies, and the funding for humanities and social sciences is suffering. All over the world there are consequences of the treatment of research as a commodity (as if it was equivalent to buying and using coal). Damage is visible in the field of research. Public engagement with science and technology, regulation of risk, research on relation of capital with labour, education research, economy related institution building and policymaking for science and technology have already experienced an immense damage.

Intellectual property, neo-liberalism and financialization

In the recent times, priority has been given by the monopoly, finance and informational capital to the expansion of capitalist relations of production in those societies that are yet not fully integrated into the global capitalist market. It has also focused on those fields of knowledge and material production, (such as biosciences and bio-economy and information sciences and information economy), that are yet to be successfully commodified and globalized. In the field of knowledge production, the process of primitive accumulation includes the private appropriation of resources previously held in common so that these can be exploited for profit, a process called ‘primitive accumulation’. Through the introduction of IP, capitalist relations of production have spread extensively to societies as yet not fully integrated into the global capitalist market, as per globalization. The intensity of the capital relation in societies whose economic relations were already dominated by capital could also expand and deepen through further subsuming social practices. These practices aim for the construction of a globalized, neoliberal knowledge-based economy (KBE) based on intellectual property.

The growing breadth and depth of phenomena of formal, real and ideal subsumption of intellectual labour to capital is visible at the level of the impacts on investments in knowledge production in the KBE. With the maturity of existing technologically advanced industries, capital has been in search of new investment possibilities. As revealed by the contemporaneous progress of science and technology, new technologies afford manipulation of material reality in novel ways in order to create profitable commodities and thus open up an entirely new sphere of social reality into which capital can expand. The two novel technologies of greatest significance in the neoliberal age have clearly been information and communication technologies (ICTs) and biotechnology. ICTs are obviously related to a knowledge economy, allowing for the significant growth of labour that is dependent on information manipulation and technical knowledge, as well as facilitating global production networks and ‘flexible’ production processes. Biotech has yet to penetrate the economy to the same extent, but it is also implicated because it is exceptional in the level of scientific sophistication, it presupposes as a factor directly involved in the innovation of new products.

There is the expansion of capital relations not only into production of knowledge for industry and agriculture but also into the ‘culture industries’, with oligopolies controlling all major cultural outputs. The intensification of capital in these societies thus had to extend into spheres of social life, held in common to date, even more removed from the daily material reproduction of society. Expansion into the relations of production of knowledge has obvious complementarities with other tendencies of the growth of the economy. The connection between neo-liberalism and the KBE, however, goes beyond this. Neo-liberalism as an ideology also has particular conceptual resonance with the drive to privatize and marketize the creation of scientific knowledge (Mirowski 2011). Neo-liberalism has been centrally concerned with the marketization of the production of knowledge on a global (or ‘universal’) scale. However, private property rights must first be instituted in that resource – that is, IPRs for markets of knowledge- in order to make the functioning of capitalist commodity markets possible.

Capital, biotechnologies and intellectual property

Much evidence shows that biotechnologies emerged without patents in the 1980s in the USA.  Progress occurred on the basis of funding received from the government and the scientists working on the generic knowledge of recombinant DNA techniques and hybridomas were not interested in patenting knowledge. More specifically the patent regimes for the life sciences can be traced to the ruling of the USA Supreme Court in the early eighties that established that DNA could be a ‘technical subject’. The important consequence of this decision was that legally speaking certain types of DNA were designated as the ‘composition of matter’ and ‘product of ingenuity’ rather than a manifestation of nature. The practice of presenting an invention based on DNA that it is basically or sufficiently chemical to be considered as patentable was put in place. The fragmented notion of life at a molecular level is knowable in an informational paradigm that is accessible for exploitation and capitalization was institutionalised through intellectual property.  A world-wide harmonization and strengthening of IPRs through the norms and standards created in the USA has been enforced now through the powerful machinery of the WTO (Preamble, Article 7). There is a compulsory extension of patentability to all micro-organisms and all ‘non-biological and micro-biological processes’ ‘for the production of plants or animals’ (Article 27(3)). The latter includes all genetically modified plants and animals.

Biotech is an exception in the direct involvement of basic science in commercial applications. For patenting to be possible in biotech, two particular changes in US law were necessary. Biological materials were not patentable, given restrictions on patenting scientific discovery rather than invention. Given the location of this biotechnological research in university departments, private appropriation of the results of publicly funded basic science research was a problem. It was with neo-liberalism in place the US universities found themselves compelled to compete increasingly for external dollars that were tied to market-related research. Not themselves being businesses, the US universities developed interest in patent reforms as trade secrets were unavailable to them.

In 1980 the Bayh-Dole Act (allowing patenting) was passed in America on the basis of the primary argument that biotech applications under development in the US universities need to be commercialised. University patenting has grown since 1980, with particularly striking growth in the life sciences. Patents granted to universities more than doubled in 1979–84 and again in 1984–9 and 1989–97 and these have been disproportionately concentrated in biological classes represented in 49.5 per cent of all university patents in the early 2000s. At Columbia and Stanford universities, both major protagonists and beneficiaries of the changes, by 1995 biomedical patents accounted for more than 80 per cent of their substantial licensing revenues. In short, therefore, the privatization through strong patents of such biological research suddenly became an acceptable change, if not an urgent priority, at exactly the time of the neoliberal counterrevolution (Tyfield, 2010).

The structural demands of global capitalist political economy – with the US at its centre—needed neo-liberalism, financialization and TRIPs Agreement for advancing the processes of subsumption of knowledge production fields to capital. Financialization after 1980 gave political power to finance capital and its favoured investments, the most important being biotech, to amend economic regulation to its advantage. Through the TRIPs agreement these trends converged in the ‘globalized construction of knowledge scarcity’. The TRIPs Agreement is one of the founding treaties of the WTO, following the post-war General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It establishes for the first time globally harmonized minimum standards for IPRs.

The TRIPs Agreement allows capital to impose patents on medicines necessary for treatment of diseases such as AIDS or tuberculosis affecting large sections of the developing world thus inflating the costs of these drugs beyond the financial means of most patients. By extending the IPR norms into the products of nature and biodiversity in which most developing countries are rich, ‘bio-prospecting’ (or ‘bio-piracy’, depending upon your perspective) have been encouraged. Bio-prospecting is a process facilitated by genetic engineering techniques, which allows even insignificant genetic modification of plants to be patented.

The economic case for TRIPs is strikingly absent. First, as regards its effects on economic growth, there is almost unanimity in the economic literature that TRIPs Agreement shifts the balance of economic gains significantly in favour of developed economies, particularly the United States, and away from developing countries (at least in the ‘short term’), thus exacerbating global inequalities in economic development. Even within the developed economies, including the US, the case for TRIPs was both spectacularly weak and dependent upon forging from scratch a conceptual connection between IPRs, free global trade and progress in science and technology.

Analysis reveals the centrality of TRIPs to neo-liberalism and the structural enablement upon which the signing of TRIPs depended. Life sciences are crucial players in the development of neo-liberalism as a concrete political project. But it was with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, American power grew yet further (its triumph greeted by now famously premature declarations of the ‘end of history’). And it was under these circumstances that India’s and other developing countries’ resistance to TRIPs was squashed in 1989.

In short, TRIPs Agreement has almost nothing to do with innovation (which is itself usually uncritically valued positively) and its implementation simply cannot be understood if it is treated as such. In fact, strong patents undermine the development of innovation capacity in most developing countries and, indeed, even in the United States itself. Rather, TRIPs Agreement is becoming a legislative measure to enforce the primitive accumulation of knowledge production on a global scale. This opens the economic case for TRIPs to the objection that IPRs are a relatively unimportant mechanism for the translation of scientific research into innovation in the vast majority of industries. But the scientific results presented an economic opportunity and were quickly latched upon as the obvious ‘next step’ by financiers. Patents, and patent reform, were seen to be crucial for this fledgling industry.

The recent history of the political efforts to create a globalized, neoliberal knowledge-based economy does not conclude, unfortunately, with the signing of TRIPs in 1994. This has been something of a surprise to many of the developing countries who finally submitted to signing TRIPs, for while they viewed it as the uppermost limit of their efforts to harmonize global IPRs, those behind the agreement saw it instead as merely the first step. The TRIPs Agreement sets minimum IP standards, leaving open to the discretion of national governments the actual form of many intellectual property laws, and includes a number of provisions that provide limited flexibility for developing countries. For instance, compulsory licensing of drugs for national health emergencies is permitted, which the governments in power in India have failed to use so far because of the fear of adverse impact on foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into the country. Almost as soon as TRIPs was signed, moves also started for a new round of negotiations both to strengthen IPRs and to remove the flexibilities of the TRIPs agreement; so-called ‘TRIPs-plus’ provisions.

Propertization of intangibles, datafication and informational capital

Mariana Mazzucato (2014) brings out that the public agencies of the United States were responsible for making risky investments behind the Internet and in funding most of the crucial elements behind the ‘stars’ of the information revolution, companies such as Google and Apple. And how each of the technologies that make the iPhone so ‘smart’ can be traced back to State investments, from the Internet itself, to the touch-screen display, to the new voice-activated SIRI personal assistant[1]. Her account of the investment in the Internet provides evidence for the complex set of actions that make such wide-ranging innovations happen.

She highlights the importance of mission-oriented funding and procurement; of the bringing together of multiple agencies; and of the creation of incentives for multiple sectors and multiple financing tools deployed to make it happen. Successful efforts do not stop at basic and applied research but carry out the work of achieving commercialization. Companies like Apple, Compaq, Intel and many others received early stage financing through government funding programmes like the Small Business Innovation Research. The infrastructure of the ICT revolution, laying the basis for the Internet, was lavishly funded by the State from its beginning stages until it was installed and fully functional and could be turned over for commercial use.

Mariana Mazzucato argues that no private investors or market forces could have done that job on their own and highlights the crucial role of the German, Danish and other governments to develop and diffuse clean energy technologies. Her key point is that in the case of most of the radical new technologies in different sectors-from the Internet, biotech, clean energy to pharmaceuticals, we can trace the funding of a courageous, risk taking State.

In the case of informational capital, presently the appropriation strategies of platforms under development by Google, Amazon, Facebook and others are three namely-the propertization of intangible resources, the concurrent dematerialization and datafication of the basic factors of industrial production and the embedding of patterns of exchange, that are legally protected in the interest of expansion of informational capital. The role of law is foundational and needs to be explored in terms of the political economy of platform capitalism. Although intellectual property doctrines suggest that data and algorithms-the building blocks of information economy, cannot themselves be the subjects of property rights, but property formalism notwithstanding, data and algorithms are the subjects of active appropriation strategies.

An important by-product of the access for data arrangements is a de-facto if not de-jure change in the legal status of data as proprietary informational property. Platform providers have worked to define both collected data and algorithms as zones of exclusivity. Platforms use contracts to facilitate and protect their own legibility function, extract transparency from users but have been shielding basic operational knowledge from third party vendors, users and advertisers alike. The particular form of the access for data contract-a boilerplate terms-of-use agreement not open to negotiation. Boilerplate agreements are contractual in form but mandatory in operation. The terms-of-use agreements step in where the map of formal entitlements ends, providing a vehicle for leveraging trade secrecy entitlements into de facto property arrangements.

Facebook’s dealings have shown that the enclosure carries over into platform enterprises’ dealings with application developers. Application developers receive access to carefully curated datasets, data structures and programming interfaces. Google’s vaunted commitments to open data and open code do not extend to algorithms or to the data it collects about its users. Google imposes other restrictive conditions on developers offering Android devices or Android-compatible applications. When access to a platform requires technical interoperability with apps for desktop and mobile operating systems, patents and copyrights can supply important points of leverage against unauthorized access by third-party vendors and future competitors.

Data extracted from individuals plays an important role as raw material in the political economy of informational capitalism. Platforms in particular have structured their broad presumptive consent and have configured the artefacts that make use enrolment seamless and near-automatic. Personal information harvested within networked information environments allow them to create the backdrop for new algorithmic techniques of knowledge production that operate as sites of legal privilege. The data are both raw and cultivated, both real and artificial. Platforms as information refineries refine and massage consumer personal data to produce virtual representations that work to make human behaviours and preferences calculable, predictable and profitable, and businesses of all sorts can use the information for surplus extraction.

Google’s chief economist has explained that at any given time Google and competing search engines are running millions of experiments on their users, designed to determine how users respond to information so that search results get optimized. In 2014, a paper co-authored by a Facebook data scientist described a massive experiment in which Facebook varied items in users’ news feeds and then used automated discourse analysis tools on those users’ own subsequent posts to gauge the effects of the news feeds on their emotional states. Major copyright industries and software producing firms have also worked to alter the legal status of networked information services in ways that would require them to prevent flows of unauthorized content or face potentially ruinous liability (Cohen, 2017).

Dynamics of generation and dissipation of rents

Intellectual property creates boundaries of private ownership over knowledge and information that are in tension with principles of public access. The tension and boundaries of private ownership has played out in different ways over time. Today capital accumulation depends far more than ever before on the contribution of “knowledge rents” derived from the ownership of intellectual property. The World Investment Report shows that international royalty and licensing fee receipts of MNCs rose from 29 billion dollars in 1990 to 328 billion dollars by 2016 which outpaced the growth in sales and exports of MNC’s affiliates and their growth in incomes from FDI outflows (UNCTAD. 2017). This also explains the role of “intangible assets”.  According to UNCTAD estimates, intangible assets (brand value and other intellectual property) estimates account for around one third of the market capitalization of the world’s top 100 MNCs on average. Intangible assets of technology MNCs account for around half of their market capitalization. They allow multinational corporations to reap super profits for extended periods of time.

In today’s global economy, the world’s top 10 corporations have a combined revenue of more than the 180 poorest countries combined. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, 10 percent of the world’s publicly listed companies generate 80 percent of all profits. A high degree of capital concentration can be seen in virtually all strategic industries today. Six multinational corporations-BASF, Bayer, Dow, Du Pont, Monsanto and Syngenta-control 75 percent of the global agrochemical market; 63 percent of the global seed market, and more than 75 percent of all private sector research in seeds and agrochemicals. By controlling the key inputs and related technologies for their production, a handful of MNCs now control the global food system. Likewise, the health of the world’s population is in the hands of 10 pharmaceutical companies. The biggest 10 MNCs in the Automotive sector control the production of motor vehicles and parts. The top 15 companies control nearly half of all global revenues in transportation, courier and postal services. In the fastest growing sector of the global information and communication technology-based production, just six or seven technology firms-Apple, Samsung, Hon Hai Precision, Amazon, HP, Microsoft and Google-control the    business.

Monopoly capitalists do everything possible within and outside law to keep their monopoly over intellectual property. Although statutorily the typical patent is valid for 20 years, but in the pharmaceutical sector the time period of patent monopoly is on average over 27 years or more in the United States. In the smart-phone industry alone, a Stanford University study tells us that as much as $ 20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in 2010-11. Apple and Samsung spent more on IPR litigation and buying up patents in 2012 than either did on R&D for their commercial products. More money is spent on preventing the dissemination of new technology or their further development. Many of these patented technologies under commercialization are based on public research. Indeed, none of the intellectual property would even be possible without public spending on basic education; without knowledge and information freely shared by people with one another; and without the knowledge and culture handed down from generation.

Contradictions of intellectual property

Intellectual property also poses contradictions for capital itself. While each capitalist wish to pay nothing for its knowledge input but wishes to charge for its intellectual output. This contradiction is reflected in the conflict engendered in the processes of intellectual property litigation. Microsoft’s use of hacker communities to beta test its commercial software and contradiction with firms that sell value-added services for Linux, an open source software (OSS) are also examples of this contradiction.

An important consequence of the strengthening of intellectual property rights of the capital is the problem of social inequality and polarization within and across nations. There is the problem of growing economic differentiation between knowledge workers, the creative workers, or information workers and other workers who are deskilled through smart machines and expert systems.

The degree of concentration of capital today is not readily revealed by examining the size of firms or even their inter-locking ownership. The global reach and economic power exercised by today’s monopoly capitalist firms is also understated by figures on FDI, export and market shares attributed to MNCs in relevant markets. This is because under neoliberal globalization, MNCs control and coordinate not only of their subsidiaries and affiliates abroad but also of nominally independent partner firms scattered in locations throughout the world. While the term ‘global value chains’ tends to give an impression that value is created at each location as per the capabilities and contribution and that the distribution of value captured by the lead terms (the MNCs) is rightfully the highest, it needs to be pointed out that MNCs rely on their monopoly control over technology via control over intellectual property to add the greatest value.

All the issues raised pertain to the process of primitive accumulation and of normal dynamic of capital accumulation set globally in motion by the imposition of TRIPs Agreement on all the member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO). There was much resistance to the acceptance of TRIPs Agreement in India. The CPI (M) provided the leadership to the organization of this resistance in India. However, there are many new areas of resistance for Marxists to take forward in the near future.

Resistance for counter-hegemonic influence in knowledge production

Legal and surveillance studies scholars have pointed out that surrendering control of the information environment to opaque, immanent entities and processes amounts to surrendering control over self-development and self-government. The impact on markets is equally profound. The legal-institutional context of the intellectual property formation has been able to alienate the labour from their own product as a resource. The networks of secrecy and boiler-plate tight agreements that constitute markets for information and knowledge are acts of enclosure. They represent strategies of (mis) appropriation of valuable resources from the intellectual commons. Appropriation strategies based on contractually mandated secrecy are acts that alter the legal status of collected information. This misappropriation or enclosure is a way of underscoring the power of capital in the field of knowledge production.  Unemployment, reserve army of labour, surplus population, are the flip side of the misappropriation or enclosure of knowledge commons.

While academics do not usually sell journal articles, books, or book chapters in markets for money, they sell some forms of knowledge commodities such as consultancy and advice in (quasi) markets. Today the commodification of knowledge in the field of higher education presents the distinctive features of the second enclosure movement wherein all kinds of scientific activities and their results are interpreted and assessed more on the basis of economic criteria. It is clear that knowledge can get commodified, but it should not be commodified is also very clear.  Research should be conducted in a systematic and disciplined way with care and thoroughness and respect for legitimate principles, with an imperative to see and to speak truth. These principles and purposes become distorted if the seeing and speaking of truth becomes subordinate to other considerations. In the field of knowledge production, no place should exist for considerations like protecting the reputation of the political authority, promoting the vested interest of the capitalist and shielding the wrong doing from the criticism of the people. This drift, be epistemic or political, needs correction.

Knowledge is a public good not only in terms of the economic benefit but also in terms of the moral sense. Scientific knowledge is not only a public good, which has the characteristics of non-rivalrous and non-exclusionary nature, but it is also an inexhaustible resource. Scientific knowledge can be put to infinite uses. Generic knowledge, be scientific or technological knowledge, is not an asset that has limited specific use but it is an asset with the characteristics of fungibility. Generic artefacts of knowledge have the potential of multiple meanings. New meanings of generic knowledge are possible. Science is the activity of manipulating nature with the use of conceptual machines, the study of technology and machinery can reveal facts of science just as the study of commodity reveals the nature of value and abstract labour.

Capital is trying to separate head and hand. Intellectual property widens the separation of head and hand.  Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature, the direct process of the production of his life, and thereby it also lays bare the process of the production of the social relations of his life, and of the mental conceptions that flow from those relations. The dynamics of rent generation in global value chains lays bare this separation. Today, trans-national capital originating from the United States, Europe and Japan controls intellectual property and uses it for surplus extraction from all over the world.

Science and technology give capital a power of expansion which is independent of the given magnitude of the capital actually functioning. There is a clear parallel between scientific abstractions, concepts and conceptual systems on the one side and value as the manifestation of abstract labour on the other. Intellectual property system is imposing on science the rule of capital. Science is the cognition of necessity. For Marxists, socialism is recognition of necessity. Knowledge is liberation.

Capital envisages for knowledge commons a role in the process of capital accumulation. Socialism envisages knowledge commons for transformation. Science is for transformation. Science is not for domination. Capital is trying to dominate humanity as well as nature. Monopoly over knowledge is threat to democracy, public interest and progress-scientific, technological and economic. Even under capitalism intellectual property monopolies are undermining social and scientific progress.

For Marxists, class struggle starts with the resistance against immediate threats arising out of strengthening of the property form and imposing the value form of knowledge production for market-based exchange. Struggles being undertaken to save and protect the space for social, scientific and technological progress need to be given importance. Production of knowledge for use towards the advancement of public interest, social progress and democracy is the integral goal of socialism.

When science is in the process of being subsumed to capital the challenge of protection of public interest in science requires struggle against the regressive trend of strengthening of intellectual property. For the achievement of counter-hegemony for social transformation Marxists must actively contribute to the struggle for transformative science which promotes the value form in which reflexivity, broadening of space for socially responsible innovations, participation, self-organization and public scrutiny and change in class correlation to alter the balance in favour of public interest, social progress and democracy are equally well counted.

References

  • Bridges David. (2017). “On the commodification of educational research”, in Annual Conference of Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, Oxford, UK. pp.1-18.
  • Cohen Julie E. (2017). “Law for the Platform Economy”, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. pp. 1363-204
  • Coriat, Benjamin and Oliver Weinstein. (2009). ‘Intellectual Property Right Regimes, Firms, and the Commodification of Knowledge.’ 5(3) Comparative Research in Law and Political Economy, Research Paper17/2009, Osogoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto.
  • David Tyfield (2010), “Neoliberalism, Intellectual Property and the Global”, Knowledge EconomyThe Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order? 2010, Zed Books Ltd, 7 Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF, UK andRoom 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA, pp. 60-76
  • Drahos Peter and Braithwaite, John (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? New York: The New Press.
  • Fisk, Catherine L (1998), ‘Removing the “Fuel of Interest” from the Fire of Genius”: Law and the Employer-Inventor, 1830-1930’, University of Chicago Law Review, 65, pp. 1127-98.
  • Fisk, Catherine L (2003), ‘Authors at Work: The Origins of the Work -For-Hire Doctrine’, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 15, pp.1-70.
  • Fisk, Catherine L (2009), Working Knowledge: Employee Innovation and the Rise of Corporate Intellectual property, 1880-1930, University of North Carolina Press, 2009, 360 pp.
  • Jessop B (2007), ‘Knowledge as a fictitious commodity: insights and limits of a Polanyian perspective, Bugra A and Agartan (eds.) Reading Karl Polyani for the Twentieth Century: Market Economy as a Political Project, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 115-133.
  • Keith Aoki (1998), ‘Neocolonialism, Anticommons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-so-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection’ in Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, Symposium: Sovereignty and the Globalization of Intellectual Property (Fall 1998), pp. 11-58.
  • Mariana Mazzucato. (2014), The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Anthem Press, UK.
  • May, Christopher and Sell, Susan K. (2006), Intellectual property Rights: A Critical History, Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.
  • Mirowski, P. (2011), ScienceMart, Cambridge MA: Harvard University
  • Szadkowski,Krystian(2017), The University of the Common: Beyond the Contradictions of Higher Education Subsumed Under Capital: accessed on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316516315.

UNCTAD. (2017). World Investment Report, UNCTAD, Geneva

[1]Siri personal assistant for iOS may not have been the first personal assistant, but it sure paved the way for modern speech-based assistants. This intelligent mobile assistant aims to make easy tasks even simpler – all done through voice command. Siri is capable of sending messages, placing calls, checking the calendar, and a whole lot more. The Siri personal assistant has so many functions, and a lot of it tends to get overlooked by users. Despite the beauty in its simplicity, there’s more to Siri than meets the eye.

[i] Ambiguity in the definitions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ may cause misunderstanding if the meanings of these terms are not distinguished. The term ‘knowledge’ implies the satisfaction of three conditions: a belief, a truth and a justification condition. Information understood ‘as data transmitted from a sender to a receiver’ does not have to satisfy these three conditions. Thus, information refers to such objects as databases (lists and statistics) and downloadable files (e.g. songs in mp3 format). Information can be treated as a sub-category of knowledge. Both information and knowledge can be commodified. It can be added that objects such as ‘datasets’, have to be activated and used by those who are able, partly due to their knowledge, to interpret and process. When understood this way, knowledge refers to something people possess, i.e. a cognitive capacity, and information refers to something passive that needs to be interpreted by those who have a cognitive capacity. However, it would not be incorrect to suggest that information matters. Cognitive capacity involves access to information.

[ii] In Marxian terms, knowledge becomes a commodity only under certain relations, i.e. what counts as a commodity is socially determined. Commodification of knowledge in itself is a complex process. The capitalist commodification process consists of the following elements: privatization (exclusive right to control an object), alienability (an object can be detached from its seller), individuation (separating an object from its context via legal/material boundaries), abstraction (assimilation of a specificity of an object to a broader type), valuation (monetization), displacement (concealing involved social relations). Under capitalism the labour process is subjected to competition that implies that there is pressure to reduce the time during which commodities are produced and how long it takes to realize the surplus value that commodities imply; commodities’ market-mediated monetary value for the seller gains more importance in relation to commodities’ use value than their material and/or symbolic usefulness to the purchaser. In a capitalist market economy only, those commodities are produced for markets that have exchange value.

[iii]Fisk (2009) tells us the details of how workplace knowledge change from something did so unknowable that the Du Ponts in 1808 had no legal basis to stop employees and their knowledge from walking out the door, to a taken-for-granted corporate asset, routinely protected by legally enforceable contracts by 1930. Part of the answer is the steady expansion of intellectual property itself, particularly in the coverage of copyright and trade secrets. The domain of workplace knowledge expanded. Fisk notes the contributing factors for this joint development: the ideology of free labour and its interaction with corporate power, changing understanding of the middle classes, the transcendence of contract discourse, and the development of a consumer society. Fisk places much emphasis on the growth of corporations and the rapid spread of office and factory work with an accompanying systematization of knowledge and bureaucratic employment practices. Together with the triumph of contract over status to define employer employee relations, the new workplace supported the commodification of creative labour and the transformation of the creative entrepreneur of the 1830s into the corporate man in grey flannel suit of the 1930s.

[iv]National Knowledge Commission, was an Indian think-tank charged with considering possible policies that might sharpen India’s comparative advantage in the knowledge-intensive service sectors. It was constituted on 13 June 2005, by the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh. In particular, the Commission was to advise the Prime Minister’s Office on policy related to education, research institutes and reforms needed to make India competitive in the knowledge economy. The Commission was to recommend reform of the education sector, research labs, and intellectual property legislation; as well as consider whether the Government could itself upgrade its use of the latest techniques to make its workings more transparent. The NKC website was launched in February 2006.

As of July, 2014, the National Knowledge Commission is defunct as the incoming Modi government, elected in the summer of 2014, discontinued it. [1]

Crisis of Neo-Liberalism: Manifold Ramifications

Sitaram Yechury

The Political Resolution adopted by the 22nd  Congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) had noted the crisis of neo-liberalism that has arisen due to the prolonged current systemic crisis of global capitalism. This is manifesting itself in multiple ways: further consolidation of the political right, globally and domestically; aggressive imperialist political/military interventions with the aim of controlling world’s economic/mineral resources and to consolidate US global hegemony;  to coerce developing countries to further open up the domestic economies for profit maximization; creating new ruptures and conflicts amongst the imperialist countries as well as rising social tensions in the pursuit of a divisive agenda imposed by imperialism, amongst others. Such a pursuit engenders the growth of racism, xenophobia and extreme rightwing neo-fascist tendencies, buttressing the political rightward shift in many countries.

Analysing the Indian situation, the Political Resolution has concluded that there is a further consolidation of the political right.  This is reflected in a vicious four-pronged attack on the country and our people.  These are: (a) the aggressive pursuit of neo-liberal economic policies (b) the sharpening of communal polarization in multiple forms (c) increasing authoritarian attacks against parliamentary democracy, institutions and people’s democratic rights and (d) cementing India to the status of a junior strategic partner of USA and imperialism.

Each one of these needs to be assessed in the background of the crisis of neo-liberalism which has a direct bearing on the Indian situation.

Crisis of Global Capitalism

The systemic crisis of global capitalism that manifested a decade ago in the global financial meltdown of 2008 continues with no signs of any meaningful recovery.  This crisis is intensifying further the levels of exploitation of the vast majority of the world’s people.  Every response of global capitalism to overcome the crisis has laid the seeds of a new deeper crisis.  Neo-liberalism’s essential thrust is profit maximization, the raison d’etre of capitalism.

In pursuance of this thrust, the capitalist State, needs to create the legal-administrative structures to facilitate profit maximisation. Neo-liberalism buttresses this with a theoretical construct around the  ‘God’ of Capitalism – Market. Markets, as capitalism always deliberately and misleadingly asserts, allocate resources efficiently, serve public interest and are self-regulatory and self-correcting. Based on the so-called Washington Consensus, in the late 1980s neo-liberalism theorized that free trade, open markets, privatisation, de-regulation, reduction in governmental expenditures to facilitate an increase of the access for private sector as the best ways to boost economic growth. By now, it is clear with the continuing global crisis that neo-liberalism boosted unprecedented accumulation of profits leading to low growth and exponentially escalating levels of income inequalities.

2001 economic Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz, ideologically far removed from Marxism, had said in an article: “The end of Neo-liberalism?”, : “ Neo-liberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experiences. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the global economy.” (www.project-syndicate.org) 

Neo-liberalism : Genesis of current capitalist crisis.  

In pursuit of profit maximisation, neo-liberalism has imposed a global economic re-ordering. It has created new avenues for profit maximization and privatized most, if not all, of public utilities and social expenditures.  As a result of these policies, the economic and income inequalities have sharply widened amongst the rich and poor in every country and between the rich and poor countries.

The consequent vicious attacks on people’s livelihood saw the decline in the purchasing power among the majority of world’s people. In order to overcome the crisis caused by this, if there are no buyers for commodities that capitalist production produces, then neither profits can be generated nor economic growth  takes place leading to a crisis. Cheap credit and subprime loans were provided to the people, so that their consumption expenditures can rise permitting the pursuit of profit maximization.  The inability of the vast majority of the people to repay these loans led, amongst others, to the global financial meltdown in 2008.  The consequent crisis was sought to be overcome by bailing out the bankrupt financial institutions.  This entailed humongous bailout packages that the capitalist governments offered.

This was essential because the current phase of imperialist globalization is led by international finance capital whose hegemony has to remain unchallenged to further pursue neo-liberal profit maximization.  These trans-national banks and financial institutions were bailed out. This, however, led to the next stage of the crisis where corporate insolvencies were converted into sovereign insolvencies.  Global capitalism is now seeking to emerge from this stage of the crisis created by threatening sovereign insolvencies  (where the country’s debt vastly outstrips its GDP) by vastly reducing government’s expenditures in the social sector through the imposition of  austerity measures, i.e., severely attacking people’s livelihood by increasing the working hours; cutting pensions; eliminating all social sector expenditures; and withdrawing even the meager socio-economic safety net provisions that the capitalist governments were making earlier.

This, in turn, is leading to a further sharp reduction in the purchasing power of the people indicating that another round of crisis is imminent.

It is clear that no amount of reform within the capitalist system can permit capitalism to emerge from this crisis.  A political alternative to capitalism is the only solution to end the vicious misery of the vast mass of the people. This would require the emergence of the political alternative, i.e., socialism as a powerful force based on the widespread struggles by the working class and the working people all across the world, i.e., by sharpened class struggles.  In many countries like in Latin America, these anti-imperialist, anti-neo-liberal protest movements had led to the emergence of elected anti-imperialist governments.  These, however, are the targets today of imperialism seeking to weaken the resistance to its neo-liberal order.

This prolonged economic crisis of global capitalism has created a crisis for neo-liberalism and its trajectory, as a consequence of growing popular discontent, against this trajectory.  This is having a multi-fold impact on global and domestic developments.

Political Rightward Shift

The growth of popular discontent against the misery imposed by neo-liberal reforms is sought to be nipped in the bud by the forces of world reaction and imperialism.  This is essential to continue the pursuit of profit maximization and not to permit this rising popular discontent consolidating as a political alternative to capitalism.  This discontent is sought to be diverted through the global agenda of fostering domestic, local and regional tensions resulting in the growth of racism, chauvinism, xenophobia and extreme rightwing neo-fascist political tendencies.  By disrupting and diverting the struggles against capitalist exploitation into such divisive agendas, global capitalism seeks to further pursue the trajectory of profit maximization, despite the continuing crisis. The objective of the political right is precisely this: establish political control for further maximization of profits by further intensifying capitalist exploitation.

In many countries the traditional social democratic parties and centrist parties had surrendered to the neo-liberal trajectory and hence, vacated the political opposition spaces.  This is sought to be filled up by the political right. CPI(M) 22nd Congress Political Resolution noted: “ This period has witnessed the further marginalization of the social democratic parties in Europe alongside the rise of the ultra-right………This is because they (social democratic parties)  embraced neo-liberalism, betraying the interests of the working people.”

The Political Resolution  has noted: “The triumph of Donald Trump in the US elections, the rightward mobilisation in the Brexit vote in Britain, the electoral gains of Marine Le Pen of the extreme right National Front in France, the advance of the Alternative for Deutschland in Germany, the formation of a rightwing government in Austria which includes the extreme right Freedom Party, and representation of nearly a third of the European Parliament MPs from rightwing and extreme rightwing political  parties are a reflection of this rightward shift. This tendency has also its consequent reflection in Indian politics.”

Before coming to the Indian situation, let us examine the emergence of the Trump presidency in the USA.  This happened when the median real income for full time male workers in the USA was lower than it was four decades ago. The income of the bottom 90 per cent of the US population has stagnated for over 30 years.  The growing discontent amongst the working American people was marshaled by Trump and the Republican Party not by seeking to reverse the neo-liberal trajectory but by diversionary and disruptive slogans that would permit the continuation of this very trajectory imposing even greater burdens on the people.

Growing unemployment amongst the US working people was met with the propaganda of restricting immigration from the rest of the world under the campaign that “foreigners are taking away your jobs”.  The growing unemployment was also ascribed to American capital locating production units outside USA and creating jobs in those countries while Americans remain unemployed.  The promise made was to stop the flow of American capital outside its shores for setting up production units.  The restrictions on immigration and the campaign that foreigners are cornering American jobs are leading to the growth of racism, which is  manifesting itself viciously.  All of Trump’s measures like imposing larger taxes on imports while forcing the world to accept US products without any duties is leading to trade wars that has a great potential for creating further instability for the global economy and intensifying the crisis.

This political rightward shift is nothing else but an attempt to prevent the growing popular discontent from taking the shape of a political alternative to capitalism. This permits the predatory character of capitalism and its profit maximization to consolidate despite the global capitalist crisis.  For instance, in 2017, 82 per cent of the additional wealth generated globally was cornered by 1 per cent of global population. Likewise, in India, 73 per cent of the additional wealth generated was cornered by 1 per cent of the Indian population- India’s ultra rich.  The shift to the political right is to ensure the continuation of such intensified economic exploitation and profit maximization.

Consolidation of Political Right in India

It is precisely this phenomenon of the political rightward shift accompanied by aggressive pursuit of the neo-liberal trajectory of intensification of exploitation of the people globally, that finds an expression here in India.  The grandiose declarations of this BJP Central government in 2014, of  achhe din (good days) accompanied by illusory balloons floated of prosperity for the people and growth of the economy were designed to mask  the opposite.  Popular discontent in India has manifested itself during the last four years in the growing struggles by the working class, by the peasantry, agricultural labour, youth, women etc.

To prevent this growing discontent from emerging as a political alternative, the RSS/BJP seek to divert this discontent through the pursuit of aggressive communal polarization amongst our people.  The mushrooming of private armies under State patronage has led to horrendous instances of mob lynching.  Under the pretext of `cow protection’, `moral policing’, `love jihad’, `child lifting’, murderous assaults, particularly on the religious minorities, Muslims, and the socially-oppressed sections, Dalits, are growing alarmingly across the country, especially in the BJP-ruled states.

Such assaults accompanied by divisive slogans breed social tensions and conflicts.  Various slogans are employed in various parts of the country, in the North East, in Jammu & Kashmir, in the South – whether on the issue of language, or, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, or, on fomenting  ethnic and religious divide (like the current discord over the draft NRC in Assam). Such tendencies are growing under State patronage diverting people’s anger away from intensified exploitation.  While such communal polarization is seeking to tear asunder the unity of our social fabric, it imposes grave dangers for the very unity and integrity of our country.  This sharpening of communal polarization and fostering of social tensions is buttressed by the propagation of Hindutva nationalism as synonymous with Indian nationalism.  Hindutva nationalism, based on exclusivity and intolerance, in fact, negates Indian nationalism that is based on inclusion and equality of all Indians, “irrespective of caste, creed or sex”, as our Constitution proclaims.

Ideological Project of RSS 

The present BJP Central government, simultaneously pursues, as the political arm of the RSS, the latter’s agenda of transforming the secular democratic character of the Indian Republic into the RSS ideological project of a rabidly intolerant fascistic `Hindu Rashtra’.  This, in itself, is a grave assault on the present Indian Constitution.

A natural corollary of this is the systematic undermining of all institutions of parliamentary democracy and Constitutional and statutory authorities.  Beginning with the undermining of Parliament itself, the developments in the highest judiciary, the question marks over the neutrality of the Election Commission, the appointments to investigative agencies of the State like the CBI, the appointments of the Heads of institutions of higher education and research bodies to the dismantling of regulatory authorities in the field of education are all manifestations of such growing authoritarian attacks.  These are aimed at facilitating the realization of the RSS project of establishing its conception of a `Hindu Rashtra’ in India.

This consolidation of the political right in India disrupts, through sharpened communal polarization, the unity of those very classes – the most exploited in Indian conditions, i.e., the working class, the poor peasantry and the agricultural labour – who form the backbone for strengthening the struggles against the neo-liberal offensive.

The unity in struggle of these most exploited classes of the Indian people forms the core of the advance of the class struggle in India with the eventual aim of forging the people’s democratic front that shall lead the people’s democratic revolution. It is this advance of the class struggle in India that the consolidation of the political right seeks to disrupt.  A further consolidation of the political right means a further correspondent push back of the advance of the class struggle in India.  Defeating this RSS/BJP agenda is the essence of the current battle to advance the class struggles in India.

Aggressive Pursuit of Neo-Liberalism

This consolidation of the political right in India is facilitating a humongous profit maximization by the Indian ruling classes led by the Indian big bourgeoisie. At the same time, foreign capital is provided greater access to exploit the Indian economy for its profit maximization.

Under the present BJP government, there is no area of economic activity, including defence production, where foreign capital’s entry is not automatically permitted.  100 per cent automatic clearance of foreign capital to maximize profits in India and repatriate them to their countries has now become the norm.  There is no public sector undertaking that is not being privatized, including the Indian Railways, Air India, defence production and communications network.

Education and health sectors are increasingly dominated by private capital denying quality education and quality health care to the vast majority of our people.  All public utilities and services like public transport, electricity, water, postal services, etc., are being privatized.

Both demonetization and the introduction of GST have also been measures to expand avenues of profit maximization for foreign and Indian corporate capital.  Apart from all valid critiques of both these measures that have been widely discussed and are the focus of people’s agitations and struggles, how these measures help the process of profit maximization need to be comprehended.  All stated objectives of the Prime Minister, when he dramatically demonetized high value currency notes, have been proven beyond any shadow of doubt, as being shallow excuses.  Instead of unearthing black money, this has been converted into `white money’, instead of confiscating counterfeit currency, this has been legalized; instead of ending corruption, the rates are doubled with the introduction of Rs. 2,000 notes in place of Rs. 1,000 notes.  On the question of terrorism, instead of terrorist strikes declining due to restrictions on cash funding, such incidents have actually escalated.

What demonetization actually did was to facilitate the initiation of a  shift to a plastic/digital economy by providing massive profits to credit card companies through `transaction costs’.   Further, demonetization has shattered the cash based petty production and trading that constituted more than 50 per cent of the country’s commercial transactions, from the sale of fish to fresh vegetables to milk etc., being virtually eliminated due to cash restrictions.  These have led to the destruction of the livelihood of crores of people dependent on such daily cash transactions.   These activities are now being taken over by e-commerce corporates or corporate retail giants.  Vegetables are no longer available with the vendor who used to come to your doorstep but people have to go to Reliance Fresh outlets now.

The GST has, it is abundantly clear by now, virtually destroyed the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) that accounted for the huge segment of small scale production in the country.  These MSMEs generated significant employment (next only to agriculture) in the country and provided livelihood for crores of Indian people.  This area of production is also now being taken over by big corporate capital in collaboration with foreign capital.

Further, India’s rich mineral resources have now been thrown open to be exploited for profit maximization to both foreign and domestic corporates.  Thus, this political rightward shift facilitating the intensification of the neo-liberal trajectory is imposing greater and greater misery on our people.

Crony Capitalism

Crony Capitalism is nothing but the profit maximisation through the loot of public monies. This is a throwback to the methods of primitive accumulation under the neo-liberal order, as analysed in the CPI(M)’s 20th Congress `Resolution on some Ideological Issues’. This had noted: “ Such an assault by the process of primitive accumulation has opened up hitherto unknown avenues for large-scale corruption.”

Such massive levels of profit maximization, aided  by crony capitalism of the worst order, facilitates the loot of India’s resources and people’s savings in a manner hitherto never seen. The Rafael aircraft purchase scam highlights the legalization of corruption at high places.  The non-repayment of loans taken by corporate India, by one estimate, is placed at a whopping Rs. 11.5 lakh crores.  The guilty are permitted to leave our country and are never punished.  Officially, this BJP government has written off close to Rs. 4 lakh crores of such corporate debt.  At the same time, this government refuses even a one-time loan waiver to the Indian farmer who is increasingly being pushed into committing distress suicides, because of growing debt burden.  The class character of this BJP government cannot be more unambiguous!

Imperialist Military and Political Aggressiveness

This prolonged global capitalist economic crisis is leading to a greater aggressiveness displayed by USA through military and political interventions across the globe.  Given the crisis of neo-liberalism, US imperialism seeks to control the major economic reserves across the world in order to overcome the impact of this economic crisis.  Further, in its efforts to further strengthen its global hegemony, it seeks a unipolar world under its leadership.

Political/military interventions are also aimed at strengthening these efforts. US/NATO military interventions are continuing in various parts of the world, particularly in West Asia, North Africa and Latin America.  Under the Trump Presidency, the US budgetary allocation for defence in 2018 increased to an unprecedented level of $700 billion.  Apart from the continuing military interventions, US global military strategic focus has shifted to the Pacific Ocean with two-third of its naval fleet deployed there. US imperialism’s specific focus is around the disputes in the South China Sea region to “contain China”, which it increasingly sees as a potentially rising rival to its designs of strengthening its global hegemony.

The US-Israel nexus has strengthened its grip in West Asia following Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel  and shift the US embassy there from Tel Aviv. This was rightly seen as an open provocation to justify Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and runs in stark contrast to all United Nations resolutions and the international community’s stand that East Jerusalem is an Israeli occupied territory since 1967.

An independent Palestine State with East Jerusalem as its capital is the internationally accepted position. The US administration is thus responsible for scuttling any possible peaceful negotiations between Israel and Palestine. This decision by Donald Trump will trigger further tensions and conflicts in the region having global ramifications.  This is already reflected  in the merciless killing of nearly 60 Palestinians, on a single day, in April 2018. Israeli armed forces opened fire on people demonstrating at the Gaza border fencing demanding return of occupying lands.

With its efforts to effect a regime change in Syria having failed, US imperialism is shifting its focus towards Iran. USA has walked out of the Iran nuclear agreement and re-imposed earlier sanctions and threatened additional sanctions not only on Iran but on any country that maintains trade or commercial relations with Iran.

In Latin America, a serious confrontation is going between the people and US imperialism following sharp escalation of US political and military interventions.  USA is targeting Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and seeking to destabilise the anti-imperialist elected governments there and to prevent the return of such forces to government in the future.

In the name of combating terror, USA is strengthening its military presence in Africa through the Africom.  Reports of US military casualties in anti-terror operations are coming in  from Nigeria, Mali and the Sahel region. The US is intervening in the internal affairs of these countries with an intent to capture their rich natural resources, control the important trading routes and markets, and also contain the growing influence of China in the African continent.

Growing Inter-Imperialist Contradictions

This crisis of neo-liberalism is, also, adversely affecting the cohesion of the imperialist camp.  The Brexit vote, the cancellation of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement by USA, US withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty, the recent developments in the G-7 summit, threatening the cohesion of the world’s club of most powerful economies, the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran – are all leading to strong differences and disagreements between the developed capitalist countries like France, UK and Germany and others like Russia and China with the USA.

At the economic level, in order to soften the impact of the crisis on itself, USA has begun to increase tariffs and duties on its imports.  This has begun a virtual trade war between USA and other countries which are now imposing counter tariffs.  This is bound to adversely impact the current crisis of neo-liberalism.

Socialist China

During the last three years, the Chinese economy expanded by an annual average growth rate of 7.2 per cent.  It is the world’s second largest economy today contributing more than 30 per cent of global economic growth, annually.

This growing economic power of China is having a big impact on international relations.  Many countries have joined the Chinese initiative of One Belt One Road project that retraces the ancient Silk Route and the maritime spice trade route.

This Modi government, in order to appease US imperialism, is the only country in South Asia, apart from Bhutan, not to join.  The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank mooted by China was also welcomed, with as many as 60 countries, among them some of the closest allies of the US like UK, Australia and South Korea too joining the initiative. Increasing assertion of China is witnessed in the strengthening of many multilateral organisations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS, etc. Alarmed at the growing clout of China in international relations, the US has stepped up its efforts to “contain China”. It is intervening in the affairs of South China sea, Korean Peninsula and Asia-Pacific region. The coming days are going to witness intense competition between the imperialist US and socialist China – a reflection of the intensification of the central contradiction of our epoch between imperialism and socialism.

Multipolarity

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) held its summit simultaneously with that of G-7.  The contrast between the two was obvious to the whole world.  While the G-7 was plunged into a disarray by the USA, the SCO has now consolidated its role as an effective regional forum with India and Pakistan becoming full members.  China is taking the initiative to establish the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank with 60 members, including some from the developed countries.  Elsewhere in Latin America, regional fora continue to play an important role as a counter to challenge US imperialist agenda.  With the establishment of rightwing governments in Argentina, Brazil and with US, which backed interventions strengthening the rightwing offensive in other countries, new problems have been created for such regional cooperation.

Conflicts between Russia and the USA continue to sharpen.  Russia has successfully outmaneuvered USA and its allies in Syria.  Sino-Russian ties are being strengthened and both are working together to strengthen multilateral fora.

All these developments show the growing resistance to US efforts to impose its unipolarity to strengthen its global hegemony. 

India: Cementing Alliance with USA

In this background, instead of utilizing the growing inter-imperialist conflicts and emerging multipolarity to our advantage by strengthening India’s independent foreign policy positions and independent interventions in multilateral fora,  this BJP government continues to further cement India as a junior partner of US imperialism.  Apart from surrendering to the diktats of international finance capital, the RSS/BJP expects that cementing strategic alliance with the USA will enable  to obtain international support for its domestic agenda to transform the character of the Indian Republic into its project of a “Hindu Rashtra”.

Though, of late, some vacillations are visible due to the above noted developments at the international level such as at the SCO summit, or, in continuing to buy defence equipment from Russia and oil from Iran in defiance of US threats, the main tendency of this Modi government continues to remain that of surrendering India’s interests to the dictates of US imperialism.

This is now visible in the negotiations that are proceeding between India and USA on the draft Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). This provides a legal framework for the transfer of communication security equipment from the USA to India facilitating “interoperability” between Indian and US armed forces. This also links with other pro-US militaries that use such technology. Overriding defence ministry reservations that fear US intrusive access to Indian military communication systems, the Modi government is proceeding to further strengthen its status of a subordinate ally of US imperialism.  This comes after the strategic  defense agreement, Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), which actualizes India as a `major defence partner’ of USA, permitting USA to access our military installations and obliges India to provide all support, logistically and materially, to US military interventions against sovereign independent countries.

Growing Resistance

The Political Resolution adopted at the 22nd Party Congress noted: “In times of intense global economic crisis, a political battle over who would marshal the rising popular discontent surfaces. The political rightwing advances by rallying popular discontent and in ensuring that the Left and progressive forces do not emerge as a major alternative political force. These right-wing forces capitalising on people’s discontent end up pursuing precisely those very economic policies that have led to this economic crisis, imposed unprecedented burdens on the people and caused the rise in popular discontent, in the first place.

It is clear that in the coming days, the political direction in many of the countries of the world will be determined by the political success in marshalling popular discontent between the left-oriented democratic forces and the political right. Fascism arose with the support of the world’s monopoly capital in the wake of the Great Depression of 1929-33. Fascist forces were able to successfully exploit the growing popular discontent amongst the people as a consequence of the crisis. In the current conjuncture, the rising popular discontent against the prolonged economic crisis is fuelling the rise of extreme right and neo-fascist forces.”

At the same time, the resistance to the rise of the political right is also growing in many parts of the world.  The French elections saw the resistance to rise of the ultra-right.  However, the choice was between a neo-liberal banker and a neo-fascist led to nearly a third of the electorate abstaining from voting in the absence of a Left alternative.

In countries where strong Communist movements and the struggles under the Communist Party’s leadership like in Portugal, Greece, Cyprus etc, the resistance to the rising political right is gaining ground.

The Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK has been resisting the neo-liberal onslaught by the political right and bringing back people’s issues to the centre of the political agenda. In the USA likewise Bernie Sanders continues with  campaigns championing people’s issues and advanced the slogan of democratic socialism. Elsewhere in Europe many neo-Left formulations have emerged as platforms of popular resistance.

India: There has been a growing resistance among various sections of the Indian people against this rightwing BJP government’s economic policies, communal polarization and authoritarian attacks. The peasantry has displayed a big resistance that continues. The working class, after two successive annual all-India industrial strikes and a massive siege of the Parliament, is now preparing for another round of an all-India industrial strike action. The proposed August 9 ‘Jail Bharo’ and the September 5  `march to Parliament’ is seeing the emergence of a worker-peasant unity in struggle which has the potential to emerge as the core of the popular resistance and forge the worker-peasant alliance in the future.

Various new platforms for struggles are consolidating. The unity between the Left movements and the dalit protest movements is strengthening. Various peasant organizations have come together on a common platform and strengthened the resistance against this Modi government’s retrograde anti-farmer  agrarian policies. Intellectuals and students are participating in big protest actions against growing intolerance and attacks on rationality and reason mounted by the Hindutva forces. In various institutions of higher education, the students and the academia are mounting resistance against attacks on our education system and the efforts to convert these institutes of learning into intellectual Hindutva laboratories.

This growing resistance, both globally and domestically, confirms the conclusion arrived at the CPI(M) 22nd Congress Political Resolution: “However, there are also countervailing developments of political struggles to stem this tide through the rise and emergence of Left oriented platforms in various countries.”

Further, the Political Resolution notes: “These developments clearly show that wherever the Left and Left oriented forces have vigorously championed opposition to neo-liberalism and imperialist aggressiveness and strengthened popular mobilization and struggles, they have overtaken the social democrats, received popular support and registered advances. In the future this is going to be the arena for political battles. In the absence of an effective left-oriented opposition to neo-liberalism, it is the right that capitalises on the growing popular discontent.”

The imperative: Defeat the Political Right
Oust this RSS-BJP government

In the final analysis, in order to advance the popular struggles against this intensified exploitation and growing misery of the people, it is essential that the political right needs to be defeated.  The struggles against neo-liberalism will have to be intensified on the basis of an alternative policy trajectory  that will eventually lead up to the consolidation of the political alternative to capitalism. It is precisely such intensification of popular struggles that the political rightward shift disrupts through its divisive agenda and, in the process, it pursues policies that further advances the neo-liberal trajectory.

Therefore, the counter posing of intensifying class struggles versus adoption of tactics, including electoral tactics, to isolate and defeat the political right represented by the communal forces in India would be tantamount to remaining oblivious to the current complex realties. Following a rich, intense discussion at the Party congress, the Political Resolution analysed the International and National situation and adopted the following political line that the Party needs to implement in the current conjecture:

(i) Given the experience of the nearly four years rule of the Modi Government it is imperative to defeat the BJP government in order to isolate the Hindutva communal forces and reverse the anti-people economic policies.

(ii) Thus, the main task is to defeat the BJP and its allies by rallying all the secular and democratic forces.

(iii) But this has to be done without having a political alliance with the Congress Party.

(iv) However, there can be an understanding with all secular opposition parties including the Congress in parliament on agreed issues. Outside parliament, we should cooperate with all secular opposition forces for a broad mobilization of people against communalism. We should foster joint actions of class and mass organisations, in such a manner that can draw in the masses following the Congress and other bourgeois parties.

(v) The Party will fight against the neo-liberal policies being pursued by the BJP government at the Centre and by the various state governments including those run by the regional parties. The Party will strive to develop united and sustained actions on the issues of people’s livelihood and against the onslaught of the economic policies.

(vi) Joint platforms for mass movements and united struggles at all levels must be built up. Resistance to the anti-people policies should be intensified. The united actions of the class and mass organisations must seek to draw in the masses following the bourgeois parties.

(vii) Given the serious challenge posed by the Hindutva forces both inside and outside the government it is essential to build platforms for the widest mobilisation of all secular and democratic forces. The emphasis should be on building unity of people to fight the communal forces at the grassroots. These are not to be seen as political or electoral alliances. Similarly, broad unity to fight against the authoritarian attacks on democratic rights should be forged.

(viii) The Party will give priority to developing and building the independent strength of the Party. It will work to broaden and strengthen Left unity.

(ix) All Left and democratic forces should be brought together on a concrete programme to conduct united struggles and joint movements through which the Left and democratic front can emerge. In states, the various Left and democratic forces should be rallied to form a platform around a concrete programme. At the national level, the Left and democratic alternative should be 54 projected in our political campaigns and to rally all those forces who can find a place in the Left and democratic front.

(x) Appropriate electoral tactics to maximize the pooling of the anti-BJP votes should be adopted based on the above political line of the Party.

(Published in – Marxist (Eng) April 2018 to June 2018)

Peasant Struggles: The Maharashtra Experience

Ashok Dhawale

Aim of Agrarian Revolution

The Party Programme of the CPI(M) characterises the present stage of the Indian Revolution as the People’s Democratic stage. The three main tasks set by it are anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly capital and anti-feudal. The agrarian revolution is considered as the axis of the People’s Democratic Revolution. Explaining this, the Party Programme says in Para 3.15:

The agrarian question continues to be the foremost national question before the people of India. Its resolution requires revolutionary change, including radical and thoroughgoing agrarian reforms that target abolition of landlordism, moneylender-merchant exploitation and caste and gender oppression in the countryside. The bankruptcy of the bourgeois-landlord rule in India is nowhere more evident than in its failure to address, much less solve, the agrarian question in a progressive, democratic way.

To advance towards its aim of an agrarian revolution, the Communist Party and the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) led a series of momentous and historic struggles in the 1940s. These struggles have been engraved in letters of gold in the annals of the peasant movement in India. As is well known, they include the struggles of Tebhaga in Bengal, Punnapra Vayalar and North Malabar in Kerala, Gana Mukti Parishad in Tripura, Surma Valley in Assam, East Thanjavur in Tamilnadu and Warli Adivasis in the Thane district of Maharashtra. They were crowned by the glorious armed peasant uprising in Telangana.

All these struggles were directed against feudalism in all its forms. They demanded the abolition of the zamindari system and advocated radical land reforms. They were fought with the land question as their central agenda. In the period after independence, it is no accident that it was only the Left-led state governments headed by the CPI(M) in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura that enacted legislation and carried out a programme of substantial land reforms and redistribution of land to the landless. A large section of the beneficiaries of these land reforms were Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Post-Independence Trajectory

The agrarian policies of successive Congress governments after independence were aimed at transforming semi-feudal landlords into capitalist landlords and developing a stratum of rich peasants. They also led to and further intensified class differentiation in the peasantry.

Analysing the Green Revolution, S.R. Pillai wrote, “The technology of the Green Revolution was introduced by the ruling classes with three clear-cut objectives: one, the fear of agrarian revolution; second, to develop capitalist relations in agriculture; third, to serve two types of interests, those of the Indian capitalists and of the multinational agri-business firms producing fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides and agricultural machineries. The technology of the Green Revolution was meant to increase productivity and production in agriculture making use of high-yielding seed varieties and modern inputs. It was claimed that once this technology was successfully implemented, India would not have to look back and an era of never ending agricultural prosperity would ensue. It soon became clear that this recipe for curing all agricultural ills was not meant for all the peasants and all the regions. It was based on a ‘selective strategy’ of distributing the seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, trillers, tractors only to those areas which have developed institutional infrastructure facilitated by irrigation, credit and other factors. This helped to increase productivity and production, but along with that, two types of inequalities also developed – the inequality between regions and the inequality between peasants.”

In the light of experience, the 23rd national conference of AIKS held at Varanasi in 1979 made an important departure. It stated as follows: “Taking note of these structural changes and their multifarious consequences, we have to come to the conclusion that that the slogan of complete abolition of landlordism and distribution of land to the landless and the land-poor continues to be the central slogan of the agrarian revolution, a slogan which we have to continue to propagate. But it is a slogan on which we cannot go into action today in mostr parts of the country. While continuing to propagate this as the central slogan, while continuing struggles for surplus land, benami lands, waste lands etc, the Kisan Sabha will have to take up for immediate action such issues as the question of wages of agricultural workers, house-sites, rent-reduction, 75 per cent of the produce to the sharecroppers, evictions, abolition or scaling down of rural indebtedness, remunerative price for agricultural produce, cheap credit, reduction of tax burdens and heavy levies like water charges, electricity rates etc, landlord goonda attacks with the connivance or direct help of the police, the social oppression of dalits, corruption in administration etc. These are the issues which affect all sections of the peasantry – poor, middle, rich – and they can all be drawn into the movement on them. All these currents have to be brought together to build the maximum unity of the peasantry centering around the agricultural workers and poor peasants to isolate the small stratum of landlords.”

The understanding at the Varanasi conference of AIKS was further concretised in the ‘Statement of Policy’ adopted in the Golden Jubilee conference of AIKS at Patna in 1986.

Attack of Neoliberal Policies

The neoliberal policies in the country, and in agriculture in particular, were begun by the Congress central government in 1991. The Party Programme states in Paras 3.23 and 3.22:

The liberalisation policies which followed the exhaustion of the State-sponsored capitalist development have led to the agricultural and rural development policies taking a dangerous and reactionary turn in the last decade of the twentieth century. These policies include decline in public investment in agriculture, in irrigation and other infrastructural work; credit from the formal sector has also sharply declined which hits the poor rural households the most. Schemes for rural employment and poverty alleviation have been cut back…Pressure is being mounted for the dilution of land ceiling laws by the states and for leasing out land to Indian big business and foreign agri-business. MNCs are entering the sphere of agricultural production. . . . With liberalisation, the MNCs which operate in the world market with advanced technologies at their command have a greater and direct control over the prices of agricultural commodities. The intensification of the exploitation of peasants through unequal exchange and violent fluctuations of prices has become a permanent feature. As a result, the peasant is fleeced both as a seller of agricultural produce and as a buyer of industrial inputs.

The 27th national conference of AIKS held at Hisar in 1992 was the first after the beginning of the neoliberal policies. It tore apart the neoliberal policies and warned, “The present policies of the Union government will have a serious adverse impact on the peasantry. This will speed up pauperization of the poor, the small and middle peasants. The number of unemployed youth, both in the urban and the rural sides will again rise to unprecedented heights.” The seminal presidential address of Harkishan Singh Surjeet at this conference elaborated on these and other aspects further. Significantly, AIKS made this assessment of the neoliberal policies within a year, when all other peasant organisations were supporting the new economic and agricultural policies. The warnings of the Hisar conference were more than vindicated by agrarian developments over the last 25 years.

‘The Alternative Agricultural Policy’ document adopted by AIKS and the AIAWU in December 2003 broadly divided the post-independence period of capitalist development in agriculture into two phases – the state-sponsored phase from 1947 to 1990 and the liberalisation-privatisation-globalisation (LPG) phase from 1991 onwards. In the light of this, it outlined the two main rural contradictions as follows:

From the above analysis, it is clear that the present situation in Indian agriculture is characterised by two important contradictions. The first is the sharp division between the rural rich, comprising landlords, big capitalist farmers, large traders, money-lenders and their allies on the one hand and the mass of the peasantry, comprising agricultural workers, poor and middle peasants and rural artisans on the other. The second is the growing opposition to imperialist-driven LPG policies of the government, not only from the mass of the peasantry but also from sections of the rural rich.

In the liberalisation phase, the primitive accumulation of capital is ruining Indian agriculture and is assaulting the Indian peasantry. Land reforms have acquired a reverse meaning. It is no longer land to the tiller, but land to the corporates. This is glaringly seen in the policy of the Special Economic Zones, the various proposed industrial corridors and in the attempt by the Modi-led BJP government at the very beginning of its tenure to ram through the hated Land Acquisition Ordinance. This attempt was foiled through a combination of united peasant struggles on the ground and concerted opposition in the upper house in Parliament.

Profit-maximisation is being sought by squeezing the peasantry through neoliberal agricultural policies. It is precisely these policies that are fuelling the catastrophic phenomenon of lakhs of suicides of debt-ridden peasants in the last two and a half decades. Slashing of subsidies and an open door to rapacious MNCs and corporates in the production of agricultural inputs leading to massive increase in the cost of production, consistent refusal to give remunerative prices for agricultural produce under pressure of foreign finance capital, a glut in agricultural imports that further ruin the peasantry, a slew of free trade agreements, crunch in formal agricultural credit and siphoning it away to the corporates, this leading to increased dependence of farmers on usurious private moneylenders, a series of natural calamities like drought, floods, hailstorms as well as attacks by pests and by wild animals, a bogus crop insurance scheme designed to benefit not farmers but insurance companies, savage cuts in public investment on irrigation and power – these are some of the main aspects of the neoliberal attacks on agriculture that are responsible for rising peasant indebtedness and alarming peasant suicides.

Worst Culprit: BJP’s Modi Regime

The present BJP central government led by Narendra Modi has been the worst culprit in intensifying neoliberal policies in agriculture, industry and all other sectors under imperialist dictates. BJP-led state governments have naturally followed suit.

Agrarian changes in the period of liberalisation were reviewed in the document ‘Certain Tasks in Kisan and Agricultural Workers’ Fronts based on the Directions of the Kolkata Plenum and Review of the Work of the Kisan Front’ that was adopted by the CPI(M) central committee at Thiruvananathapuram in January 2017.

The General Secretary’s Report to the 34th national conference of the All India Kisan Sabha held at Hisar, Haryana from October 3-6, 2017 analyses in detail the agrarian changes in the last 25 years of liberalisation in the section titled ‘Changes in Agrarian Relations and Class Differentiation’. It then outlines the disastrous agrarian scenario in the country under the current BJP regime led by Narendra Modi which has betrayed every single promise of ‘Achhe Din’ made to farmers by the BJP election manifesto of 2014. For lack of space, we shall here just enumerate some of the major aspects and results of BJP rule over the last four years that have been analysed in that report. These are:

  • Intensified agrarian crisis and unabated peasant suicides;
  • Rapid increase in landlessness and land inequality;
  • Unprecedented land grab and dispossession of the peasantry;
  • Attack on forest rights and loot of resources;
  • Financial liberalisation and indebtedness;
  • Enamour for free trade and economic liberalism;
  • Demonetisation and GST attack on the peasantry;
  • Corporatisation of agriculture;
  • Doubling farmers’ woes instead of incomes;
  • Incessant fall in agricultural prices;
  • Acute human tragedy amidst drought, floods and government apathy;
  • Attack on MNREGA and rural employment;
  • Increased vulnerability of women in agriculture;
  • Notification restricting cattle trade;
  • Menace of wild animals and stray cattle;
  • Climate change and compromise at Paris summit;
  • And grave authoritarian and communal attacks on democracy and secularism.
Nationwide Peasant Resistance

It is not surprising that peasant resistance to the agrarian policies of the BJP government has broadened and intensified. This peasant resistance today is centred around two main areas: the struggles on land and land-related issues; the struggles against agrarian distress, which have naturally revolved around liberation from debt and remunerative prices.

In the struggle against the Land Acquisition Ordinance, AIKS took the initiative to bring several peasant and social organisations together to form a broad platform called the Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan (BAA). This has taken up several land-related issues, and also those related to the killing of farmers by cow vigilantes. State units of the BAA have been formed in a number of states.

Another broad platform which now comprises over 190 farmers’ organisations called the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) was set up after the Mandsaur police firing in BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh in June 2017. It took up the two key issues of the vast mass of the peasantry of India today, viz. loan waiver and remunerative prices as per the C2 + 50 formula of the National Commission on Farmers (NCF) headed by Dr M S Swaminathan. After a countrywide campaign, a massive two day Kisan Sansad of tens of thousands of farmers from across the country, and also a novel Mahila Kisan Sansad, was held on Parliament Street in New Delhi on November 20-21, 2017. Two bills on the above two issues have been painstakingly prepared, consultation meetings have been held in most of the states and they will be tabled before Parliament.

AIKS itself has taken up several independent struggles in many states like Rajasthan, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere. Of these, the Rajasthan Kisan struggle has been one of the most consistent and noteworthy. Another remarkable and consistent struggle has been going on in Maharashtra since 2015. We shall take a brief look at the glorious history of AIKS in Maharashtra and then come to recent struggles that led up to the unprecedented Kisan Long March in March 2018.

Shocking Reality in Maharashtra

Two shocking objective facts serve to explain the massive response to the peasant struggles in Maharashtra in recent years.

One, the question of farmers’ suicides. Since the advent of neoliberal policies in agriculture begun by the Congress government in 1991 and carried forward with great speed by successive Congress and BJP governments – the Modi government being the worst culprit – 400,000 debt-ridden farmers in India have been forced to commit suicide in the past twenty-five years. These figures come from the National Crime Records Bureau of the Union Home Ministry. Maharashtra has the notorious distinction of being the largest ‘graveyard of farmers’, accounting for nearly 75,000 peasant suicides in the same period.

Two, the question of starvation of Adivasi children. Thousands of Adivasi children in the state, and also all over the country, die every year due to malnutrition and starvation – a result of multiple factors such as landlessness and unemployment as well as the breakdown of the public distribution system and the health care system.

These two searing facts are enough to throw a blinding light on the deepening agrarian crisis and agrarian distress in the state and the country.

So far as the agrarian scenario in Maharashtra is concerned, that has been analysed in some detail by this writer in the article titled “Agrarian Challenges in Maharashtra Today” that was published in Marxist, April-June 2014, Volume XXX 2.

A Look Back at History

The seeds of AIKS in Maharashtra were planted in the second quarter of the twentieth century. It is a remarkable record which is not so widely known. Let us draw a thumbnail sketch of some of the main events in its glorious history.

In the historic struggles against caste and against landlordism that were led by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar in the 1920s and 1930s, R.B. More and Shamrao Parulekar were two prominent leaders who participated. Both of them later joined the Communist Party. R.B. More was one of the main organisers of the famous 1927 Chowdar Lake Satyagraha at Mahad in Raigad district that was led by Dr Ambedkar. It demanded the basic right of Dalits to draw water from that lake. Dr Ambedkar and Shamrao Parulekar led a huge 8,000-strong peasant demonstration on the Mumbai Assembly in 1938 against the ‘Khoti’ system of landlordism that was then prevalent in the Konkan region. Remarkably, the peasants had all come to Mumbai by boat from the then Ratnagiri district of Konkan region.

Another important fact connected with the working class was that, when the Congress interim government elected in 1937 proclaimed a Black Act against the working class, the Communist Party and the Independent Labour Party led by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar came together and led a massive joint campaign and a general strike in Mumbai against this Act on November 7, 1938. Significantly, this day marked the 21st anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) was formed at its foundation conference at Lucknow on April 11, 1936. Some delegates from Maharashtra attended it. The second conference of AIKS was held at Faizpur in Jalgaon district of Maharashtra on December 25-26, 1936. M A Rasul, in his detailed work A History of the All India Kisan Sabha, has recorded that, “About 500 kisan marchers led by V.M. Bhuskute and J. Bukhari started from Manmad on 12 December and marched over a 200-mile trek and reached Tilaknagar, Faizpur at noon on 25 December carrying the Red Flag and shouting kisan slogans. On arrival there they were received by Jawaharlal Nehru (Congress president), Shankar Rao Deo (Congress Reception Committee chairman), M.N. Roy, Maniben Mulji, Narendra Dev, besides kisan leaders like Swamiji, Ranga, Yagnik, Jaiprakash Narayan, Bankim Mukherji and Shibnath Banerji, also S.A. Dange, M.R. Masani, Yusuf Meherali and other Congress, kisan and labour leaders.”

Peasant struggles on various issues intensified in the mid-1930s in Thane, Nashik, Ahmednagar and other districts. AIKS had chosen Shamrao Parulekar to be its organiser in Maharashtra. In 1942, after their release from a two-year British jail term for leading the anti-war campaign, Shamrao and Godavari Parulekar began work in AIKS in right earnest. In 1943-44, the Kisan Sabha was started by them in the Kalyan, Murbad and Shahapur tehsils of Thane district. Shamrao and Godavari met P. Sundarayya and M. Basavapunnaiah, the future leaders of the historic Telangana armed peasant struggle, with whom they continued to have very close relations throughout their lives.

The foundation conference of the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha was held on January 12, 1945 at Titwala in Thane district. Godavari has recorded that she, along with other activists, covered over 700 villages on foot and addressed 160 public meetings for this conference. More than 7,000 poor and middle peasants and agricultural workers from several districts attended this first state conference of the Kisan Sabha. She has also recorded that among the top leaders who addressed the conference were P. Sundarayya, P. Krishna Pillai, B.T. Ranadive, M.A. Rasul, Teja Singh Swatantra and N.M. Joshi. The conference elected a 33-member state kisan council. Buwa Nawale from Akole tehsil of Ahmednagar district was elected the first president, Shamrao Parulekar the first general secretary and Godavari Parulekar the first joint secretary of the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha, among others.

It was this conference that unleashed the historic Adivasi Revolt led by the Communist Party and the Kisan Sabha in Thane district. This revolt which began in May 1945 continued for over two years. It abolished all forms of slavery and bonded labour, increased wages of agricultural labourers and succeeded to an extent in giving land to the tiller. This struggle is documented in detail in Shamrao Parulekar’s book Revolt of the Warlis and in Godavari Parulekar’s book Adivasis Revolt. The Adivasi Revolt gave its first five martyrs on October 10, 1945, when the British police, who were in league with a plot hatched by the landlord lobby, fired mercilessly on a peaceful gathering of over 30,000 Adivasis at Talwada, near the Talasari tehsil of Thane district. Comrade Jethya Gangad was among those who were killed in this state repression. There have been a total of 61 martyrs of the Communist Party and the Kisan Sabha in Thane-Palghar district since 1945 – victims of successive British, Congress and BJP regimes, and 3 martyrs in Nashik district. Most of them have been tribals.

The foundation of the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha and the Warli Adivasi Revolt were the culmination of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle waged by Shamrao and Godavari Parulekar in the pre-independence era.

From 1943 to 1946, in another historic struggle, British rule was overthrown for three and a half years and a ‘Parallel Government’ (Prati Sarkar) was established in Satara and Sangli districts of Western Maharashtra. It had the full support and backing of the peasantry. This revolt was led by ‘Krantisimha’ (Lion of the Revolution) Nana Patil, who later joined the Communist Party and was also elected AIKS national president in the 13th AIKS Conference that took place at Dahanu in Thane district in May 1955.

On August 15, 1947, independence dawned over India at last. But on that day, over 600 Adivasis from Thane district owing allegiance to the Red Flag of the Communist Party and the Kisan Sabha woke up to freedom in Congress jails, as did thousands of other Communists all across the country. The most famous among them was, of course, a legendary leader of the Indian people – A.K. Gopalan, who was to lead AIKS as its national president for several years.

The liberation of large parts of Dadra and Nagarhaveli from Portuguese rule from July 24 to August 3, 1954, under the armed leadership of the Communist Party and the Kisan Sabha in Thane district, was a major event in the post-independence period. This struggle was directly led by Shamrao and Godavari. L B Dhangar and hundreds of Adivasi comrades participated in this liberation struggle.

The holding of the 13th national conference of AIKS at Dahanu in Thane district from May 19-22, 1955, braving all manner of repression and obstacles by the government, was another significant event in the history of the Kisan movement in Maharashtra. Towering leaders of AIKS like P. Sundarayya, A.K. Gopalan, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, Hare Krishna Konar, N. Prasada Rao, M.A. Rasul, Bankim Mukherjee, Harkishan Singh Surjeet, Dasharath Deb, B. Srinivas Rao, Jagjit Singh Lyallpuri and others attended the conference which was accompanied by a massive rally. Shamrao and Godavari were the moving spirits behind this conference and Kratisimha Nana Patil was elected as AIKS president.

Another leader from Maharashtra, Godavari Parulekar, would also be elected national president of AIKS at its 25th Conference, which was its Golden Jubilee session at Patna. She is the only woman to have held the post so far. In earlier times, Shamrao Parulekar had also been an AIKS central office-bearer for many years.

In the 1950s, democratic movements for the formation of linguistic states were unleashed in many parts of the country. The ruling Congress Party went back on its pre-independence pledge to form such states. This was the reason for the movements like Aikya Keralam, Vishal Andhra, Samyukta Maharashtra and Maha Gujarat that swept these states in the decade of the 1950s. The Samyukta Maharashtra movement, from 1956 to 1960, was led by the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which comprised four main parties – the Communist Party, the Praja Samajwadi Party, the Peasants and Workers Party and the Republican Party. It engulfed the state, with the peasantry and working class both joining it in huge numbers. In the massive repression that followed, 106 martyrs were killed in police firing. Most of them were from the working class in Mumbai and the rest were peasants.

This movement dealt a massive blow to the Congress Party in the 1957 elections to parliament and the state assembly. Several leaders of the above four parties won the elections. Among those elected to parliament were AIKS leaders Shamrao Parulekar and Krantisimha Nana Patil and another towering RPI peasant leader Dadasaheb Gaikwad. Many AIKS leaders who were Communists were elected to the state assembly. Eventually, the central government was forced to concede the demand, and the state of Maharashtra was formed with Mumbai as its capital on May Day – May 1, 1960.

In 1958, a big joint statewide struggle for land was launched in Maharashtra. The significant aspect of this struggle was that blue flags of the Republican Party led by Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad and red flags of the Communist Party and AIKS led by Shamrao, Godavari, Nana Patil, R.B. More and others came together in it. Thousands of Dalits, Adivasis and other landless took part in the satyagrahas and filled the jails. The government was forced to make some concessions.

In 1960, the Kisan Sabha led by Shamrao and Godavari took up the vital demand of vesting forest plots in the names of the Adivasis who have been cultivating them for decades. Thousands of acres of land were vested in the names of Adivasis as a result of this struggle, until the draconian Forest Conservation Act of 1980 put a stop to the entire process. Ever since then, large struggles of Adivasis have been led by AIKS in several districts of Maharashtra to press this demand. The Forest Rights Act (FRA) passed by Parliament in December 2006, although it marks an important advance on paper, leaves much to be desired as regards its implementation. Massive struggles of the Adivasi peasantry have been waged by AIKS in Maharashtra in recent years towards this end.

Shamrao Parulekar, who had been elected to the first central committee of the CPI(M) in its foundation 7th Congress at Kolkata in 1964, was in detention in the Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai. He suddenly died due to a massive heart attack at the age of 63 on August 3, 1965. It was a shattering blow for Godavari, who was also in the same jail at the time. It was an equally shattering blow for AIKS and for the Kisan movement.

In 1968, AIKS split at the All India level, and in 1969 the 7th state conference of the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha was held in the village called Moha in the Beed district of Marathwada region, with the initiative taken by Gangadhar Appa Burande. AIKS general secretary Hare Krishna Konar attended this conference which decided the future course of the Kisan Sabha in Maharashtra. Godavari Parulekar was elected its president and continued in that post for more than two decades.

In 1972-73, a grave drought hit Maharashtra and the Kisan Sabha, led by stalwarts like Godavari Parulekar, Gangadhar Appa Burande, Narendra Malusare, Ramchandra Ghangare, Vithalrao Naik, L.B. Dhangar, Krishna Khopkar, Lahanu Kom and others led big peasant struggles for drought relief. CITU in Maharashtra extended fraternal help and this illustrated the concept of worker-peasant unity in action. Joint struggles on this issue were also launched along with peasant organisations led by other Left parties. Police firing led to the death of peasants at Islampur in Sangli district and at Vairag in Solapur district. This led to a statewide uproar. It was as a result of these struggles that the state government was forced to start two important schemes – the Employment Guarantee Scheme (the precursor to the MNREGA) and the Monopoly Cotton Procurement Scheme. It was during the great drought of 1972 that Godavari Parulekar and Narendra Malusare started work through struggle in the Surgana tehsil and other tribal ares of Nashik district. From that arose gradually the next major bastion of AIKS in Maharashtra.

In the struggle against the hated Emergency imposed by the Congress regime from 1975 to 1977, several opposition party leaders were arrested and detained for 19 months. During the Emergency itself, Godavari Parulekar led a successful struggle for the release of over 1000 debt slaves in the Wada tehsil of Thane district. In the general elections of 1977, the authoritarian Congress was routed. In that election, three CPI(M) leaders – Ahilya Rangnekar from Mumbai, Lahanu Kom from Thane district and Gangadhar Appa Burande from Beed district – were elected to the Lok Sabha as part of a united front. The latter two were prominent AIKS leaders. In the 1978 state assembly elections, 9 MLAs of the CPI(M) were elected on an anti-authoritarian platform. They included four AIKS leaders – Vithalrao Naik from Parbhani district, Shankar Chavan and Barkya Kurhada from Thane district and Jiva Pandu Gavit from Nashik district.

By the early 1990s, however, AIKS in Maharashtra had basically become limited to its two main tribal bastions in Thane and Nashik districts and to three other traditional districts of Beed and Parbhani in the Marathwada region and Wardha in the Vidarbha region. It was in the mid-1990s that systematic efforts were made to inject new young blood in AIKS, mainly from student and youth organisations like SFI and DYFI. This had a salutary impact, and AIKS rapidly spread to 25 districts in the state. The other two major initiatives taken in recent years were to try and transcend the traditional tribal base of AIKS by taking up burning issues of the mass of the peasantry of Maharashtra through struggles and to change the form of struggles to make them more confrontational.

Accordingly, several statewide and local struggles on burning issues of the peasantry were led by AIKS especially in the post-1991 era of imperialist globalisation in the wake of its severe attack on agriculture and the peasantry. Only a very few major struggles led by AIKS in the new century may be briefly mentioned.

A joint and militant struggle led by AIKS from 2007 to 2010, in alliance with the Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) and other organisations, against the proposed 25,000-acre MahaMumbai SEZ allotted to Reliance Industries of Mukesh Ambani in three tehsils of Raigad district adjoining Mumbai. This proposed SEZ would have uprooted 45 villages, root and branch. The struggle entailed two huge rallies of over 50,000 peasants each, one of which had CPI(M) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sitaram Yechury as the main speaker, and a referendum in which over 98 per cent of the peasants refused to part with their land. The state government was finally forced to denotify the MahaMumbai SEZ, which was a historic victory for the peasantry not only of Maharashtra, but of the whole country.

A massive independent statewide Jail Bharo stir in January 2011 for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and on burning issues like peasant suicides, in which over 1 lakh peasants courted arrest.

Revival of the same struggle for FRA implementation and on the question of severe drought in April 2013, in which over 50,000 peasants conducted Rasta Roko at several centres for over 40 hours. The state government was forced to concede several demands in talks with AIKS on April 17.

Independent statewide demonstrations of 1.25 lakh rural poor in 2012 for their demand for inclusion in the Below Poverty Line (BPL) lists. The struggle was successful in some districts, where the names of thousands of rural poor were included in the BPL lists.

The other major struggles in recent years after 2015 have been outlined below.

51 years after Thane district hosted the 13th national conference of AIKS in May 1955, it was Nashik district that hosted the 31st national conference of AIKS in January 2006, with an unprecedented one lakh-strong peasant rally representing 30 districts of Maharashtra. Godavari Parulekar would have been the happiest had she lived to see it.

Godavari Parulekar passed away at the ripe old age of 89 on October 8, 1996. The day on which she was cremated at Talasari in the erstwhile Thane (now Palghar) district on October 10 was also the day 51 years ago in 1945 when the first five martyrs of the historic Adivasi Revolt were mercilessly gunned down by the venal nexus of the landlords and the imperialists. AIKS President S. Ramachandran Pillai and CITU leader Mohd. Amin attended the funeral. October 10 is observed every year by means of large rallies in Thane-Palghar district as Martyrs’ Day and also as the Godavari Parulekar Death Anniversary Day.

Recent Mass Struggles

The remarkable Kisan Long March from March 6-12, 2018, was the culmination of three years of constant struggle led by AIKS in Maharashtra since October 2015.

A state-wide AIKS campaign called the Peasants Rights Awareness Campaign was launched for a month from October 5 to November 10, 2015. Extended AIKS district council meetings were held in 24 districts of the state. AIKS leaders Dr Ashok Dhawale, Kisan Gujar and Dr Ajit Nawale, along with other state office-bearers, attended all these meetings. In these meetings, the burning issues of peasant struggle were identified, the nature of the struggle was discussed, and the steps for organisational strengthening were decided.

In the second week of December 2015, over 50,000 peasants under the AIKS banner came on to the streets in 29 tehsil centres of 15 districts in all the five regions of the state on the four issues of land rights, loan waiver, remunerative prices and drought relief.

On January 7 and 8, 2016 respectively, AIKS held two regional-level loan-waiver and drought relief conventions at Selu in Parbhani district for the Marathwada region, and at Malkapur in Buldana district for the Vidarbha region. Both were well-attended.

AIKS and its allied organisations – the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the All-India Agricultural Workers Union (AIAWU) – held a joint state convention on October 31 at Parbhani. A call was given for a joint action on January 19, 2018. That day, over 1,33,000 workers, peasants and agricultural workers held a massive joint state-wide jail bharo [fill the jails] stir for their demands against the BJP-led central and state governments. The largest number of those arrested – over 92,000 – was of AIKS.

On January 28, AIKS held a state-level convention in Nashik that gave a clarion call for an unprecedented state-wide siege (mahapadav) of 100,000 peasants from March 29 onwards in Nashik city. This struggle call was the culmination of the six-month long AIKS campaign in Maharashtra outlined above. Two lakh persuasive and attractive leaflets and 12,000 posters for the campaign were published by AIKS and they were distributed to all the districts in the convention itself. District councils later also published thousands of leaflets.

From February 7 to March 1, 23 AIKS district conferences were held after village and tehsil conferences. They prepared for the struggle and also strengthened the organisation.

One Lakh Peasants Lay Siege to Nashik

As a result of all these intensive preparations, AIKS held a historic one lakh-strong independent state-wide rally on March 29, 2016, followed by an unprecedented day and night sit-in satyagraha for two days and two nights on March 29-30 at the CBS Chowk in the heart of Nashik. This satyagraha paralysed the city. AIKS highlighted four issues for struggle:

  • Land rights under the Forest Rights Act (2006).
  • Loan waiver for peasants.
  • Higher remunerative prices.
Drought relief.

This militant peasant action received massive and sustained coverage in both print and electronic media. Sections of the electronic media covered it live on both days. This struggle placed AIKS at the centre stage of the peasant movement in Maharashtra after a long time.

The rally was addressed by CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury, AIKS General Secretary Hannan Mollah, renowned journalist P Sainath, AIKS leaders Dr Ashok Dhawale, J.P. Gavit MLA, Kisan Gujar, Dr Ajit Nawale and leaders of other mass organisations.

On March 30, the beleaguered Maharashtra Chief Minister Shri Devendra Fadnavis invited the Kisan Sabha for talks. A one hour discussion was held with the Chief Minister, three other Ministers and senior officials in the Vidhan Bhavan in Mumbai in the midst of the assembly session. Some of the demands were conceded, but were never implemented. AIKS, therefore, began concerted struggles for their implementation.

Struggle for Drought Relief

On May 3, 2016, around 1000 peasants and students from all the eight districts of the Marathwada region, led by AIKS and the Students Federation of India (SFI), broke two police barricades and marched right inside the compound of the Aurangabad Divisional Commissioner’s office. This militant action was conducted for the burning demands related to the grim drought situation in the region. The agitators occupied the office for over an hour until the officers agreed to hold a meeting with the AIKS-SFI delegation the next day, in which all officials dealing with drought-related issues were summoned from all the eight districts. For two days and one night on May 3 and 4, all the agitators camped right outside the Commissionerate.

Under this pressure, in the meeting that was held on May 4, most of the major demands that lay within the administration’s purview were conceded. The specific demands that were conceded related to the provision of drinking water, work and wages under MNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employee Guarantee Act of 2005), fodder for cattle, agricultural inputs for peasants, fee waiver for students, land issues related to temple lands and forest lands and so on. The grave nature of the drought and the militant actions of AIKS and SFI forced the print and electronic media to cover the Aurangabad struggle.

10,000-Strong ‘Coffin Rally’ in Thane

AIKS led a 10,000-strong novel ‘Coffin Rally’ in Thane city, near Mumbai on May 30, 2016 to focus on the issue of peasant suicides. The peasants carried bamboo frames (called tirdi in Marathi) covered with white cloth, on which dead bodies are carried. This dramatically highlighted the grave issue of suicides of debt-ridden peasants in Maharashtra. This rally, which was addressed by AIKS President Amra Ram, was widely covered by the media, especially since it highlighted the grave issue of mounting peasant suicides. The subsequent state conference at Talasari in Palghar district on May 31 and June 1 was attended by AIKS General Secretary Hannan Mollah.

50,000-Strong Maha-gherao in Wada

On October 3-4, 2016, over 50,000 Adivasi peasants, women, youth and students from various tribal districts of Maharashtra held a gherao of the house of the BJP Tribal Development Minister at the sub divisional centre of Wada in Palghar district. The struggle was jointly led by AIKS, All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), SFI and Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch (AARM). The main issues were the stringent and immediate implementation of the Forest Rights Act, malnutrition-related tribal child deaths, work and wages under MNREGA, the plight of the PDS, health services and the educational problems of tribal students.

The gherao continued for 16 hours and all highways leading from Wada to Mumbai, Thane, Bhiwandi, Palghar, Dahanu, Talasari, Surat and Nashik were completely blocked. The minister had fled a day before in fear of this action. When the people refused to move, the Minister had to send the state Tribal Development Commissioner for talks with the delegation and had to send a fax agreeing to a high-powered meeting in the state secretariat at Mumbai on October 7. It was only after a four-hour nightlong discussion with the Commissioner, where he conceded many demands, that the gherao was lifted at dawn on October 4 with a huge public meeting.

The meeting of the delegation with the Tribal Development Minister, half a dozen secretaries of related departments and half a dozen district collectors of tribal districts took place in Mumbai on October 7. It continued for over five hours. The minister was forced to concede several long-standing demands about FRA implementation, malnutrition-related tribal child deaths, MNREGA and PDS-related demands, education and other issues. The minutes of the meeting and a special government circular were released to all concerned officials in the state, which put the demands conceded in writing. This struggle resulted in a major victory. There was some initial progress in implementation, but it then floundered.

Whipcord Rally at Khamgaon

On May 11, 2017, AIKS organised an ‘Aasood’ (Whipcord) State Convention followed by the ‘Aasood’ State Rally to the house of the BJP state Agriculture Minister at Khamgaon in Buldana district of Vidarbha region to focus on the issues of peasant suicides, loan waiver and remunerative prices. Mahatma Jotirao Phule had written a celebrated book in 1881 titled The Whipcord of the Peasant (Shetkaryacha Aasood). It was from this that the Whipcord Rally was named (the whipcord is a form of braided cotton, used to make cloth or whips).

All these independent struggles over two years put the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha for the first time in the mainstream of the peasant movement in the state and helped it to become a key constituent of the united peasant struggle that began in June 2017.

Historic Farmers’ Strike

In the historic united Farmers Strike that lasted for 11 days from June 1 to 11, 2017, AIKS played a crucial role. Farmers refused to get their milk, vegetables and fruits for sale in the markets in the cities. AIKS took the lead in bringing other farmers’ organisations together to continue the strike when some blacklegs tried a sell-out in a midnight meeting with the Chief Minister on June 2/3. Due to his role in opposing this sell-out at that meeting, AIKS state general secretary Dr Ajit Nawale was elected Convenor of the Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Organisations. A massive joint Maharashtra Bandh was successfully held on June 5 to support the farmers strike, followed by other large mass actions.

On June 11, a group of five Ministers of the state government was forced to hold talks with the Coordination Committee and they publicly agreed to give a complete loan waiver to the peasantry. But within a fortnight, although it announced a deceptive loan waiver package of Rs 34,000 crore and a waiver of up to Rs 1.5 lakh per farmer, it betrayed its promise of a complete loan waiver and imposed several onerous conditions that would leave a great majority of farmers out of the loan waiver orbit.

Massive joint agitations were held against this betrayal, including a united campaign tour of 15 large district conventions in July that mobilised over 40,000 farmers despite the monsoons and a state-wide Chakka Jaam (Road Blockade) on August 14 in which over two lakh farmers blocked national and state highways at over 200 centres in 31 districts of the state. AIKS participation in this joint Road Blockade action was the largest – over 85,000.

By a conscious decision, all the above independent and united struggles by AIKS were peaceful and disciplined. Throughout the campaign for all these struggles, apart from concentrating fire on the BJP-Shiv Sena state government, the BJP-led central government of Narendra Modi was also severely castigated for its anti-peasant, anti-people, pro-crony corporate and neoliberal policies and its dangerous communal and casteist conspiracies.

When the state government refused to relent on both the crucial aspects of loan waiver and land rights, AIKS again decided to take up cudgels against the betrayal of the BJP state government, and took the decision of the Long March and the Assembly Gherao.

Unprecedented Kisan Long March

It was truly an amazing struggle, the like of which has not been seen in Maharashtra in recent times. It caught the imagination of the peasantry and the people, and received their unstinted support, not only in the state, but all over the country. It received the backing of parties and organisations all across the political spectrum. During the week of March 6th to March 12th, the Long March of nearly 200 kilometres became the centre of attention for the entire national and state media. Print, electronic and social media resonated with the march. The number one hashtag in India for March 12th was #KisanLongMarch.

The Long March began in Nashik. Twenty-five thousand farmers, including thousands of women, took the first steps. The March concluded in Mumbai with over 50,000 farmers. It was an ocean of red – the red flag of the All-India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), red banners, red flags, red caps and red placards with our slogans.

The largest mobilisation of peasants came from Nashik district. Thousands of Adivasi peasants, under the inspiring leadership of AIKS former state president J.P. Gavit (a seven-time and current Member of the Legislative Assembly in Maharashtra from the CPI-M). The next largest contingent came from the Thane-Palghar district, followed by the Ahmednagar district. Farmers came from other districts as well. Their numbers swelled on the last two days of the Long March.

Condemnation of BJP’s Betrayal

During the past two years, the BJP central and state government had given certain specific assurances to the Indian peasantry. They had said that they would accept the demands for a series of concerns, such as:

  • Farm loan waiver.
  • Remunerative prices.
  • Implementation of the recommendations from the National Commission of Farmers (2006), chaired by Dr. M.S. Swamin­athan.
  • Stringent implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA).
  • Increase in various pension schemes for poor peasants and agricultural workers.
  • Compensation for losses sustained by farmers due to the disastrous pest attacks (such as pink bollworm on cotton).
  • Vesting of temple and pasture lands in the name of the tiller.
  • Opposition to acquisition of peasant land in the name of fancy and elitist projects, such as the bullet train and super highways.
  • Issues connected to the public distribution system.

Complete change in the river linking scheme that is to start in Nashik, Thane and Palghar districts. AIKS demands that the tribal villages not be submerged and that the water is made available to these districts and to other drought-prone districts in Maharashtra.

Over the past two years, the BJP governments at the centre and at the state have betrayed all their assurances given to the peasantry. The above list of demands and grievances has been ignored. The Kisan Sabha organised the Long March to condemn the BJP state and central government for their consistent betrayals.

Preparations for the Long March

In Sangli, at the AIKS State Council meeting on February 16, a decision was taken to hold the Long March. The AIKS collective state leadership began to make meticulous preparations for this enormous endeavour. We had barely 17 days before the March was to begin. AIKS began the March on March 6, a few days after Holi (March 1 and March 2). The State Assembly would be in session.

The most important task was mobilisation of peasants for the March. Hundreds of meetings were held in the villages, thousands of leaflets were distributed, and registration drives were conducted. A press conference was held in Mumbai on February 21 and at Nashik on March 2 to publicise the Long March.

The question has often been asked – how were the logistics of the Long March dealt with? Rice, dal, chillies, oil and firewood for the food of the participants was collected by peasants from the villages themselves and was stored in several tempos. The tempos used to go ahead of the marchers and volunteers would cook and keep the food ready for the marchers when they reached the designated spots every day for lunch and dinner. Hired water tankers for drinking were stationed at various points along the way. An ambulance with a doctors’ team of Kisan Sabha sympathisers and the necessary medicines collected by the CITU-affiliated Medical Representatives Union were kept along with the Long March. AIKS state and Nashik district office bearers made three reconnaissance trips from Nashik to Mumbai and back to decide on the appropriate places to have lunch, dinner and to rest in the night. This was in itself a difficult task.

The marchers walked an average of 30 to 35 km per day in the scorching sun and on the second last day, the distance that had to be covered stretched to 43 km! It goes without saying that all AIKS leaders walked with the peasants throughout.

There were thousands of women in the march. Their grit and determination was amazing – and also humbling. Many of them walked barefoot, with bruised and bleeding feet. These women were specially lauded and saluted.

The way that tens of thousands of poor and landless peasants marched relentlessly with determination 30 to 35 km per day for seven days in scorching heat, hundreds of them barefoot, bruised and bleeding on tar roads, stirred the conscience of the nation. It evoked not only massive public support for their cause, but also massive public anger against the callous and insensitive BJP-led state government. It made people aware of the economic injustice and social inequality prevailing in the country. This sight must have made many people want to fight against injustice and inequality.

During and after the strenuous march every night, hundreds of men and women still had the energy to sing and dance to the tune of their quaint musical instruments. Culture was an inseparable part of their lives. That they did this night after night despite all the physical exertion was indeed admirable and it enthused all others too.

Overwhelming Response from the People and the Media

The people responded with great love and appreciation for the Long March. People from the working-class and the middle-class – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits – welcomed the March with open arms in several localities. Groups of hundreds of people, including youth and women in large numbers, congregated at various spots en route to felicitate the marchers. They donated generously – both in cash and in kind. Ordinary people came forward to give us water, sharbat, biscuits, food and even footwear. In my 40 years of life in the Left movement, I must admit that I have never come across such a spontaneous outpouring of support and solidarity.

Many of the ordinary people who met us in Mumbai city, including several media persons and even some in the police explained to us the reason for their solidarity. This is the sum and substance of what they said – we are also the children of farmers; our roots lie in the villages; we know the plight of farmers; and that is why we have come out in your support.

The biggest and most spontaneous reception to the Long March was in the Dalit locality of Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar at Ghatkopar in Mumbai, the very place that had seen the shooting down of 11 Dalits in police firing under the BJP-Shiv Sena regime 20 years ago. The Dabbawalas of Mumbai also contributed their mite to the cause. In the most touching move, farmers from Raigad district under the leadership of the Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) brought 1.5 lakh rice bhakris and dry fish for the marchers on the last day at Azad Maidan. CITU, AIDWA, DYFI and SFI in Mumbai and Thane-Palghar districts launched a campaign amongst the people in support of this Long March, but the mass response went far beyond that. This response of the people further steeled the marchers in their resolve.

The CPI(M) Maharashtra State Committee had, of course, given full support to this Long March right from the beginning. Another Left party, the Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) also supported it throughout. CPI leaders were present at Nashik to greet the march when it began. All other political parties except the BJP – viz. Congress, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Samajwadi, Republican, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and also the Shiv Sena, which is a partner in the state government, openly supported the Kisan Sabha Long March and their top leaders either joined the march for a time or pledged their support when it had stopped for the night at Sion or when it culminated at Azad Maidan. The massive response of the people and the media was the key reason for this unprecedented support of many unlikely forces right across the political spectrum.

The print, electronic and social media all over the country played a magnificent role. That highlighted not only the Kisan Long March but also the deep agrarian crisis and burning peasant issues with relevance for the whole country. It began with a video taken by Dr Ajit Nawale of tens of thousands of farmers marching down the hill of the Kasara Ghat near Igatpuri on the morning of day three, with the picturesque view of hills on one side and valleys on the other. The red banners, red flags, red caps and the sheer numbers really startled the media. The video went viral in the social media and after that we started getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream print and electronic media right up to the culmination of the Long March.

Sensitive and humanitarian decision

The Kisan Sabha leadership took the sensitive and humanitarian decision of walking day and night on the last day, from 11 am on March 11 when the march started from Thane city to 6 am on March 12 when it reached Azad Maidan in the heart of south Mumbai. This decision was taken to avoid the inevitable traffic snarls on March 12 that would surely have disrupted the final board examinations of tens of thousands of SSC students in Mumbai and would have led to the loss of a precious year in their lives. Tens of thousands of peasants took this decision democratically, at the suggestion placed by J P Gavit, by a massive and unanimous show of hands on the night of March 11 when they reached the Somaiya Maidan at Sion in Mumbai city. Their noble sentiments were expressed in these memorable words, ‘It does not matter if we have to suffer some more, but we will not let our children in Mumbai suffer.’ They had their dinner, rested for an hour or two, and restarted their march to Mumbai after midnight, reaching their destination at dawn. This gesture drew the unstinted admiration of people not only in Mumbai, but all across the country. Several prominent celebrities in India also expressed their appreciation at this gesture.

Government Concedes

All this put tremendous pressure on the BJP-led state government. Actually, the state government had not bothered to make any contact with the marchers till March 11, the penultimate day of the march, when their state Irrigation Minister Girish Mahajan met the leaders during the march itself and the memorandum of demands was handed over to him. Initially, before the march began, they had almost certainly underestimated its likely size. Later, the massive response to the Long March of the peasantry, the people and the media, which they had least expected, shocked them into taking action.

On March 12, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Ministers Chandrakant Patil, Girish Mahajan, Eknath Shinde, Pandurang Fundkar, Subhash Deshmukh and Vishnu Savra, along with a battery of top officials of various departments, held a three-hour discussion with Kisan Sabha leaders in the Vidhan Bhavan. Also present were leaders of the opposition Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil (Congress), Dhananjay Munde, Ajit Pawar and Sunil Tatkare (NCP).

General secretary of the Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) Jayant Patil, MLC, who had helped the Kisan Sabha struggle all along, and state president of the Janata Dal (Sharad Yadav group), Kapil Patil, MLC, were also present during the discussions.

The Kisan Sabha delegation included Dr Ashok Dhawale, J.P. Gavit, MLA, CITU former state president Narasayya Adam, ex-MLA, Kisan Gujar, Dr Ajit Nawale, Subhash Choudhari, Savliram Pawar, Sunil Malusare, Irfan Shaikh, Ratan Budhar, Barkya Mangat, Radka Kalangda, Umesh Deshmukh, Sidhappa Kalshetty, Vilas Babar and DYFI state vice president Indrajeet Gavit. These were AIKS state office bearers who actually walked in the Long March, along with AIAWU state leader Manohar Muley and CITU state leader Vinod Nikole.

In the light of the earlier bitter experiences with the present government, the Kisan Sabha had taken the clear position right in the beginning that it would not withdraw this struggle without official written assurances. These written assurances on all the demands were given within an hour of the conclusion of the talks, with the signature of the chief secretary of the state government. Three Ministers of the state government – Chandrakant Patil and Girish Mahajan of the BJP and Eknath Shinde of the Shiv Sena – came on their own to the victory rally at Azad Maidan and pledged to implement the agreement that had been reached. The Kisan Sabha also insisted that the agreement arrived at should be placed on the table of the House by the chief minister in the state assembly that was then in session. Accordingly, the chief minister tabled that agreement in the House on March 13.

Concrete time-bound written assurances have been given by the government on AIKS demands concerning the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), river linking proposal adversely affecting tribals in Nashik, Palghar and Thane districts, loan waiver to farmers, mechanism for remunerative prices, vesting of temple lands, regularising houses on pasture lands, no land acquisition without consent, increase in old-age pensions, improving the public distribution system and compensation to lakhs of farmers in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions who have suffered huge losses of the cotton crop due to pink bollworm pest attacks, hailstorms and other issues. The agreement reached on March 12 between the Government of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha has been published in the CPI(M) central Party papers People’s Democracy and Loklahar.

Resounding Victory Rally

The resounding AIKS victory rally of over 50,000 farmers at Azad Maidan in Mumbai on the evening of March 12 was addressed by CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, ex-MP, CPI(M) state secretary Narasayya Adam, ex-MLA, PWP general secretary Jayant Patil, MLC, Janata Dal (Sharad Yadav group) state president Kapil Patil, MLC, former AIKS president Amra Ram, ex-MLA, AIKS joint secretaries K K Ragesh, MP, and Vijoo Krishnan (who had taken part in the first two days of the march), renowned journalist P Sainath, CPI(M) central committee member Mahendra Singh, AIDWA general secretary Mariam Dhawale and vice president Sudha Sundararaman, CITU vice president Dr D.L. Karad, and by leaders of this Long March – AIKS national president Dr Ashok Dhawale, former state president J.P. Gavit, MLA, state president Kisan Gujar and state general secretary Dr Ajit Nawale – and, earlier in the day by other leaders of AIKS, CITU, AIAWU, AIDWA, DYFI, SFI and by a wide spectrum of the supporting political parties, organisations and individuals.

All the farmers left Mumbai on the night of March 12, with tremendous confidence generated by this victory, buttressed with deep gratitude towards the people of the city, the state and the country who had supported them to the hilt in this struggle. The massive nationwide public response to this Long March was a tribute to the valiant, peaceful, democratic and unprecedented struggle waged by tens of thousands of peasants under the collective leadership of the Maharashtra Rajya Kisan Sabha.

A Battle Won, The War Remains

This massive response was also a reflection of the fact that the demands of land rights, loan waiver, remunerative prices and pension, which were essentially directed against the neoliberal policies of the BJP-led governments in the state and at the centre, were in fact the demands of the peasantry of India as a whole. The Long March was an integral part of a movement of farmers that is breaking out all over the country.

Now the AIKS Central Kisan Committee has decided to broaden and intensify this struggle all over the country. We have decided on an unprecedented campaign of collecting 10 crore signatures of farmers and all citizens across India to demand a loan waiver, remunerative prices, land rights, pension and comprehensive crop insurance. On 9th August, 2018, the 76th anniversary of the Quit India Movement, lakhs of farmers in the country will submit these signatures to every District Collector and will then conduct a peaceful and democratic countrywide Jail Bharo (Fill up Jails) agitation on these demands. The slogan will be: Just as Mahatma Gandhi told the rapacious British imperialists to Quit India, so also the farmers of the country will tell the anti-farmer, pro-corporate, communal, casteist and divisive Modi-led BJP government to Quit India!

One more major decision taken is to organise a massive countrywide Mazdoor-Kisan Rally in Delhi on September 5, 2018, jointly by CITU, AIKS and AIAWU. It is an important step towards worker-peasant unity.

Another crucial gain of this Long March was that the peasantry struggled together as a class, rising above the divisions of religion, caste and creed. The massive peoples’ solidarity with it also cut across all these barriers. It showed that, in the last analysis, class struggle and class solidarity is the only way to fight back the dark forces of communalism and casteism.

One battle has been won, but the war still remains. And after the victory in this battle, this war shall be fought with even greater grit and determination all over the country!

Marxist, XXXIV, 1, January-March 2018