BBC: 72 Indian Soldiers Killed by Maoist Ambush [Archive]

View Full Version : BBC: 72 Indian Soldiers Killed by Maoist Ambush

Pages : [1] 2

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 16:32

Maoist rebels have killed at least 72 Indian soldiers in a series of attacks on security convoys in the central state of Chhattisgarh, officials say. Troops were on patrol in dense jungle in a remote part of Dantewada district when rebels opened fire on them and set off explosives, police say.
Rescue teams were also ambushed. Police say fighting is continuing.
It is the biggest loss of life security forces have suffered since launching a recent offensive against the rebels.
Nearly 50,000 federal paramilitary troops and tens of thousands of policemen are taking part in the operation in several states.
Thousands of people have died during the rebels' 20-year fight for communist rule in large swathes of rural India, known as the "red corridor".
'Trap'
Details of the attacks in Dantewada district remain sketchy.
Police say the rebels initially attacked a convoy of the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the Talmetla area.
However, India's Home Minister P Chidambaram said it appeared that the forces had "walked" into a rebel ambush.
"Something has gone very wrong. They seem to have walked into a trap set by the [Maoists] and casualties are quite high," he said.
RK Vij, a spokesman for the CRPF, told the BBC that 67 bodies of security personnel had been recovered from the site of the fighting.
"The injured troops have been evacuated by helicopter. More reinforcements have been sent," Mr Vij said.
The rebels also attacked troops sent to rescue their colleagues, police said.
"Fighting is still carrying on in the area, and we're having great difficulty getting news from there," police official Ashok Dwivedi told the Reuters news agency from Chhattisgarh state capital, Raipur.
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says Chhattisgarh is a major stronghold of the Maoists who control large swathes of territory in central and eastern India.
Talks call

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47591000/gif/_47591666_india_chhattisgarh_0604.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Profile: India's Maoist rebels (http://www.revleft.com/2/hi/south_asia/8605404.stm)

The latest attacks come two days after rebels killed at least 10 policemen and injured 10 more in a landmine attack on a police bus in the eastern state of Orissa.
The rebels say they will step up attacks unless the government halts its offensive against them.
Mr Chidambaram has said troops will intensify the offensive if the rebels do not renounce violence and enter peace talks.
The Maoists want four senior leaders freed from jail and the offensive halted before any talks.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has described the Maoist insurgency as India's "greatest internal security challenge".
The Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of the rural poor who they say have been neglected by governments for decades.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8604256.stm

What are the Maoists saying about this ambush? Any falsehood in the media report that they'd like to point out?

pranabjyoti

6th April 2010, 16:38

Already reported in the "India is loosing Maoist battle" thread in this "politics" section. So far, as per the TV reporting, actually death is 83 and some more are missing. Huge amount arms has been snatched and one anti-landmine patrol car is totally destroyed by the blast.

Morgenstern

6th April 2010, 16:40

Wow very impressive! I mean one or two dead is nothing but that many... very impressive. Perhaps a revolution in India may finally get a push from the horrible social conditions.

red cat

6th April 2010, 16:42

Numbers have gone up to 75. Seems to be the biggest operation ever.

http://www.wgme.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/379e21c9-www.wgme.com.shtml

Edit: pranab beat me to it. :lol: 82 is huge!

Spawn of Stalin

6th April 2010, 16:51

Best news since Terreblanche died.

Barry Lyndon

6th April 2010, 17:14

Wow. The Naxalites are really kicking ass. I'd hate to see what the Indian government is going to do in retaliation, though. It won't be pretty.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 17:19

Wow. The Naxalites are really kicking ass. I'd hate to see what the Indian government is going to do in retaliation, though. It won't be pretty.
Probably collective punishment against whomever they can get their hands on.

So many good men and women have died, and many more will die. Fuck.

Devrim

6th April 2010, 17:25

Does anybody here honestly think that something like this brings the working class even one step closer to power?

Devrim

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 17:34

has an individual who values Human Lives, i just think this event is Sad.

i am not supporting neither side here, i dont know much about India so i cant really judge neither sides.

Even if this Operation was justified, its still a bloody mess, people died, probably from verry painful death.

What i am saying is, we should not see this has a moment to cheer up and rejoice, there is nothing cool or fun about people getting killed. Class ennemy or not, those 72 guy had families, just like their Maoist counterpart.

Yes violence might be necessary for revolution to succede, but the killing of human being is something horrible, and if it had to happen, we should at least show a minimum of respect to the people who have to be killed in order to make this social progress happen.

long live the revolution, my condoleance for all the indian soldier and their families, my condoleances for also all the Maoist who might have been killed during the raid.

Nolan

6th April 2010, 17:39

Does anybody here honestly think that something like this brings the working class even one step closer to power?

Devrim

Are you trying to be called an armchair revolutionary? What do you suggest the Maoists do? Convert to left communism and become pacifists?

red cat

6th April 2010, 17:40

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 17:42

This is called centrism.
nope.

has i said, if killing to happen, so be it, but the death of individuals are NEVER a matter of rejoicing.

pranabjyoti

6th April 2010, 17:46

The black Indians are taking over white Indians, one can call this events in this fashion too.

red cat

6th April 2010, 17:47

nope.

has i said, if killing to happen, so be it, but the death of individuals are NEVER a matter of rejoicing.

I am not comparing within the two incidents, but Mussolini was an individual too.

By the way, though common soldiers have their origin in the oppressed class, while in such missions, they engage in indiscriminate loot, murder and rape. Killing 80 there probably saved 8000 lives.

red cat

6th April 2010, 17:47

The black Indians are taking over white Indians, one can call this events in this fashion too.

This is not clear. Please explain.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 17:52

Indigenous and peasant resistance movements are allies to the working class movement. Besides, would you rather they surrender their homeland and livelihood to Indian corporations and just lie there waiting for death?

I don't think this is a moment for rejoice, because many Maoist fighters must have given their lives for this victory. In fact, the casualties could be higher on the Maoist side.

Oh, and I don't buy into the "Nazis are human too" argument. When you slaughter defenseless indigenous people, burn their villages and rape the women, you're pretty much fair game for retaliation in my view.

RIP to the comrades who died fighting against their oppressors.

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 17:57

I am not comparing within the two incidents, but Mussolini was an individual too.
.
Yes, and just tell me how killing him benefited to the italian people?
dont get me wrong, i hated the fucker, just like i hated hitler, but i fail to see how killing them made thing better. Jail the fucker for life would have been more appropriate.

By the way, though common soldiers have their origin in the oppressed class, while in such missions, they engage in indiscriminate loot, murder and rape. Killing 80 there probably saved 8000 lives.
excuse me sir, but while i have no doubt that the indian army rape, loot and murder, i think its a bit pretentious to pull those number from your ass.

then again, i am not necessarly condemning the incident, i am just saying that the killing of human being is NEVER a matter to rejoice.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 18:21

Yes, and just tell me how killing him benefited to the italian people?
Yes, he should have been kept alive in a mansion as the head of the Italian Fascist party, and why not give him a talk show he could host?

You can't judge the oppressed for retaliating against the oppressors. The oppressed have never had the "legitimate" means to retaliate against the oppressors. So they take whatever they can get.

The fact that the peasant fighters have inflicted a defeat on the Indian military should be appreciated, while it's tragic that the victory came at a heavy cost; and that perhaps a few innocent Indian soldier got caught in a conflict they don't want to be in and died unnecessarily.

Antifa94

6th April 2010, 18:39

I was waiting for someone to post this

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 18:48

Yes, he should have been kept alive in a mansion as the head of the Italian Fascist party, and why not give him a talk show he could host?
.
nice job deforming what i said earlier. Many people Who where guilty during the nuremberg trial, albert speer for exemple, have been imprisoned for a lot of time and their lives where definitively not comfortable.
Mussolini should have served a life sentence has an exemple.

You can't judge the oppressed for retaliating against the oppressors. The oppressed have never had the "legitimate" means to retaliate against the oppressors. So they take whatever they can get.

i dont judge them, stop deforming my word. I said, that Killing, Even if necessary should never be celebrated. Killing should never be the main objective of a war or an armed conflict, if you have to kill people to gain something, so be it, but the killing and the number of death itself is not matter of celebration and joy, what matter is the objective.

NaxalbariZindabad

6th April 2010, 18:55

I agree people shouldn't celebrate the deaths of soldiers in itself.

However we surely should celebrate yet another Maoist military victory.
That's another step closer to power!

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 19:13

Killing should never be the main objective of a war or an armed conflict, if you have to kill people to gain something, so be it, but the killing and the number of death itself is not matter of celebration and joy, what matter is the objective.
No one's made killing itself the objective, the Maoists certainly have not.

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 19:21

No one's made killing itself the objective, the Maoists certainly have not.

and yet, everyone in this topic seem to be more interrested about the number of indian military killed than the actual objective of the skirmish.

But i wonder, what was the objective of the skirmish?

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 19:24

But i wonder, what was the objective of the skirmish?
To force the Indian government into giving up its pipe dream of the total subjugation of indigenous peasants and agreeing to conduct peace talks.

chegitz guevara

6th April 2010, 19:27

I would rather hope the objective is the overthrow of the Indian state.

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 19:28

To force the Indian government into giving up its pipe dream of the total subjugation of indigenous peasants and agree to conduct peace talks.

is it really what the maoist said about the attack?

chegitz guevara

6th April 2010, 19:32

The government is doing very bad things to the tribals. While I agree it is crass to rejoice over the deaths of others, these soldiers were not innocents.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 19:35

I would rather hope the objective is the overthrow of the Indian state.
They're no where near that stage.

From the looks of it, the peasants need food, medicine, etc but above all, security, which means less harrassment from the Indian security forces.

is it really what the maoist said about the attack? They've been saying they want peace talks with the government ever since the government waged a total war against them.

That's right, the Maoists didn't attack the parliament in New Delhi, the soldiers that got killed are part of the massive operation ("Operation Green Hunt") to annilate the Maoists. They screwed up and got annilated themselves.

Wanted Man

6th April 2010, 19:42

The usefulness of this victory seems pretty obvious; anyone who knows how to read and use Google can learn that the Indian government runs a massive counter-insurgency operation, and crush all opposition from workers and peasants.

So for the maoists to defeat a much stronger, better armed, professional military machine so comprehensively is quite obviously a massive step. It is similar to the jailbreak (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4434834.stm) in 2005, when the maoists freed hundreds of political prisoners from a jail in Jehanabad, and gave murderous upper-caste militia leaders a taste of their own medicine (I'm sure some people in this thread would have grieved for them too :().

Both are significant in that they show the maoists' growth in strength and organisation, and the threat that they pose to the Indian state (which the state itself acknowledges).

Barry Lyndon

6th April 2010, 19:42

In this situation I am unreservedly on the side of the Maoists. They appear to be the only major political force in India that is fighting on the side of India's most brutally oppressed and exploited, and doing it with some effectiveness. They are sending a very clear message to the corrupt oligarchy that rules India behind the thin veil of 'democracy'(one-third of India's parliament are millionaires, how the hell is that democracy?), that the cosigning of hundreds of millions of people into the most horrendous poverty imaginable is going to have consequences for them, REAL consequences and that if they don't clean up their act, they may very well end up hanging from a lampost, as they should be. I wish the CEO's of AIG and other vulture capitalists had similar thoughts in their heads.

And for those who say that the death of those paramilitaries is 'sad', I don't hear such compassion regarding the hundreds of villages that the police have burned, in order to seize the land coveted by multinational mining corporations. I don't hear it for the thousands of women who have been systematically raped by the police to terrorize the tribals into submission. I rarely hear it for the hundreds of millions in India who suffer from the daily, structural violence of having no food to eat, no clean water to drink, no shelter, no school for the children to go to(who are abandoned to labor in sweatshops and prostitute themselves in order to survive), people who literally spend their lives in sewers cleaning up shit while above their heads CEO's and politicians careen around in limousines.

Let's hope this is one of many victories to come. May the red flag one day fly over New Dehli. Long live the victory of Peoples War! Inquilab Zindabad! :hammersickle:

The Vegan Marxist

6th April 2010, 19:50

and yet, everyone in this topic seem to be more interrested about the number of indian military killed than the actual objective of the skirmish.

But i wonder, what was the objective of the skirmish?

The fact that the Indian Maoists were organized enough to do so much damage, then it only confirms the strength of the Maoists, themselves. Which is an importance as they continue to wage revolutionary warfare against the Indian State. Just because it was a sad day & we shouldn't celebrate the deaths of so many, we should be able to rejoice in recognition that our numbers are gaining strength in an area where it seemed unlikely at one time for the Indian Maoists. So I will celebrate. Not for the deaths, but for the strength that's rising.

Lyev

6th April 2010, 20:09

Are you trying to be called an armchair revolutionary? What do you suggest the Maoists do? Convert to left communism and become pacifists?
Captain Cuba, stop trying to impress red cat. It's a perfectly valid comment; there's a few things that need consideration here. I don't think you're looking at the wider picture; rebels killing their enemies doesn't automatically equate to emancipation. Firstly, such an attack, that's got such coverage in the media -- we're seeing quite big coverage on it even here, in the west -- is going to provoke a very nasty backlash from paramilitaries and government forces. I can acknowledge that this is a war between the Maoists and the government, and, yes, people are going to die, but we shouldn't praise these deaths as if it's an enjoyable thing. These paramilitaries are simply doing their jobs, and they have names and they have wives and they have children. Anyway, it's possible that we could see a step-up in the Indian government's anti-Naxalite operations. It could result in totally innocent villagers and tribes-people, that reside in the "red corridor", getting killed by Indian troops. I'm kind of skeptical that this attack is progress at all. We're just going to see further corporate development in India and a backlash from paramilitary forces. It depends how much India can sustain these attacks against the Maoists; I think we're in it for the long haul. Such a conflict is reminiscent of the current war in Afghanistan, or the American invasion of Vietnam. I.e. harderned guerrilla's in native landscape vs. big superpowers with money and technology. It would be different if the Maoists had actually destroyed some infrastructure; a western, corporate factory; or if they had stopped a bulldozing of natives' homes; or if they had stopped more western developers. Whilst this shows us the growing confidence of the Naxalites, and whilst I still support them, I'm unsure as to whether this has actually achieved anything.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 20:16

These paramilitaries are simply doing their jobs, and they have names and they have wives and they have children.
That's not a good excuse. The Nazi concentration guards used that exact defense. The fact remains that they are participating in a violent campaign against indigenous peasanst. A few of them may not be willing participants, but that doesn't automatically forbid the peasants from defending themselves.

red cat

6th April 2010, 20:23

Captain Cuba, stop trying to impress red cat. It's a perfectly valid comment; there's a few things that need consideration here. I don't think you're looking at the wider picture; rebels killing their enemies doesn't automatically equate to emancipation. Firstly, such an attack, that's got such coverage in the media -- we're seeing quite big coverage on it even here, in the west -- is going to provoke a very nasty backlash from paramilitaries and government forces. I can acknowledge that this is a war between the Maoists and the government, and, yes, people are going to die, but we shouldn't praise these deaths as if it's an enjoyable thing. These paramilitaries are simply doing their jobs, and they have names and they have wives and they have children. Anyway, it's possible that we could see a step-up in the Indian government's anti-Naxalite operations. It could result in totally innocent villagers and tribes-people, that reside in the "red corridor", getting killed by Indian troops. I'm kind of skeptical that this attack is progress at all. We're just going to see further corporate development in India and a backlash from paramilitary forces. It depends how much India can sustain these attacks against the Maoists; I think we're in it for the long haul. Such a conflict is reminiscent of the current war in Afghanistan, or the American invasion of Vietnam. I.e. harderned guerrilla's in native landscape vs. big superpowers with money and technology. It would be different if the Maoists had actually destroyed some infrastructure; a western, corporate factory; or if they had stopped a bulldozing of natives' homes; or if they had stopped more western developers. Whilst this shows us the growing confidence of the Naxalites, and whilst I still support them, I'm unsure as to whether this has actually achieved anything.

In most third world countries, deaths due to starvation and malnutrition which are unreported, generally exceed those that follow due to mass uprisings.

Today, the broad revolutionary masses of these countries understand the risks very well, and they have decided to fight back having full knowledge of the military consequences.

In areas where media reports are absent, security forces are asked to kill a certain number of revolutionaries per day. But they cannot do so as the guerrilla forces simply disappear into the masses. So they shoot civilians to fill their daily quota and report them as dead Maoists.

The fact that there have been huge coverages will actually serve two purposes:

1) It will prevent government forces to a certain extent from taking their revenge on innocent civilians.

2) There will be more desertions and switching sides in the government forces. Let us not forget that some soldiers from these forces do join revolutionaries all the time.

In most of the areas where these actions are happening, the activities like destroying imperialists' infrastructure etc. have already occured. That is why the government is sending in troops. The masses have destroyed the old system and created their own revolutionary system; now they need to defend it.

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 21:06

i think expropriate have a valid point here.

I dont think that, high casualities will make the indian army fall back or force the indian governement to negociate, all it will do is to give more reason for the indian governement to go foward with other offensives.

this is not my war tho, what i could say about it have no impact on how things wil be done.

anyway, i am not here to judge of the validity of the maoist movement in India, all i am saying is that, i find disgusting that some people here seem to jack off over the number of the scores of killed people and dont seem to be able to tell me what the naxalites have won from all that bloodshed.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 21:24

Correction:

I just read from a Chinese source, that the casualty figure for the Maoists could be as low as 2. One killed and one wounded.

The target of the ambush is mainly Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and some local policemen. They're an ill-trained government force, so the casualty figures make a lot more sense.

Then again, even the elite Indian Special Forces suffered 26 casualties (10 killed, 16 wounded) 2 days ago in an IED ambush.

red cat

6th April 2010, 21:28

The Central Reserve Police Force is very well trained and some of them specialize in counter-insurgency operations.

the last donut of the night

6th April 2010, 21:29

o hai guys, how bout we all live in peace with the indian bourgeois state and read rosa luxembourg while our land becomes bauxite mines

danyboy27

6th April 2010, 21:30

o hai guys, how bout we all live in peace with the indian bourgeois state and read rosa luxembourg while our land becomes bauxite mines

ho hai, how about you stop deforming what i say and engage on constructive dialog.

ktanx.

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 21:43

The Central Reserve Police Force is very well trained and some of them specialize in counter-insurgency operations.
http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/07/stories/2010040754201200.htm
This article begs to differ.

Little imagination is needed to see the core irony: anaemic State police forces unable to fight the Maoists have been bolstered by ill-trained Central forces. In part, this was because the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Reserve Police Force refused to draw on the rich expertise available to them.

I've read that India spends much of its military budget buying and maintaining air craft carrier, planes, tanks and naval vessels so that they inevitably neglect the training and equipment of much of its internal security forces.

Members of the CRPF are lucky if they could have a second-hand AK-47---Which is still better on average than the Maoist guerilla fighters, of course.

Anyway, they seem to have placed too much importance on dealing with external "threats" like Pakistan and China.

red cat

6th April 2010, 21:48

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/07/stories/2010040754201200.htm
This article begs to differ.

That is just to underestimate the combative strength of revolutionaries.

Take a look at this:

Union Home Ministry sources said it is suspected that certain information could have been planted that drew the contingent of the CRPF, which is a well-trained force, into the ambush.

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?678721

This elaborates a bit, though it is not about today's incident:

The CRPF shadow warriors have been trained in the army's elite Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School in Mizoram and CRPF's anti-terrorist school in Silchar. They are adept in the art of camouflage and jungle movement. Small strike teams can infiltrate Lalgarh forests (maybe they already have), collect information and help plot a battle plan. It is information from spotters on high ground (or camouflaged on trees) that will help Cobra mortar teams bring down accurate fire on Maoist positions.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata-/Guerrillas-wary-of-CRPF-Cobra-strike-in-jungle-lair/articleshow/4673722.cms

Das war einmal

6th April 2010, 22:46

According to some sources among these killed, where paramilitaries. That's revolutionary justice

comrade_cyanide444

6th April 2010, 22:58

RedStarOverChina

6th April 2010, 23:15

I am not clear of how the rebels killed so many personnel; whether it was small arms fire or IEDs. The rebels need to organize and train in a manner similar to Hezbollah. They need to adjust their principles and only attack forces that attack them for a while. Perhaps improving relations with fellow Leftists wouldn't hurt.
They ARE being attacked.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of Operation Green Hunt.

There's much media deception going on in India. Much distortion of the Maoist struggle as well as attempts to conseal military brutality. Consequently, public opinion in urban areas is clearly against the Maoists.

scarletghoul

6th April 2010, 23:17

If they keep doing these forms of attacks, they will become criminals, even in the Leftist's eyes. They have to create some sort of party and use peaceful diplomacy to negotiate with and rally for the Indian people. You mean like the CPI(Marxist) ?

They need to adjust their principles and only attack forces that attack them for a while. These forces were attacking them. That's the reason these paramilitaries exist, to attack the Maoists and oppress the tribals... its not like they just decided to form a paramilitary army and parade through the forest one day with completely peaceful intentions.. The whole point of military/paramilitary/police forces is to oppress the people and destroy their resistance (maoists)

Perhaps improving relations with fellow Leftists wouldn't hurtWhat you mean like the CPI(Marxist) who has been openly siding with capitalists and big landlords for decades ?

The mainstream Left does not work and has only betrayed the people.
There is a war on. The people are under constant attack and are fighting back under the leadership of the Maoists. Advocating non-violence for the oppressed in a situation like this means de facto taking the side of the oppressor.

Lyev

6th April 2010, 23:25

In areas where media reports are absent, security forces are asked to kill a certain number of revolutionaries per day. But they cannot do so as the guerrilla forces simply disappear into the masses. So they shoot civilians to fill their daily quota and report them as dead Maoists.

2) There will be more desertions and switching sides in the government forces. Let us not forget that some soldiers from these forces do join revolutionaries all the time.

In most of the areas where these actions are happening, the activities like destroying imperialists' infrastructure etc. have already occured. That is why the government is sending in troops. The masses have destroyed the old system and created their own revolutionary system; now they need to defend it.
Have you got evidence for any of the above? I don't deny that these things happen/happened, but some examples would be nice.

And, on "desertions and switching sides", this is definitely something for the Naxalites to work on*. In the months running up to October '17, the Bolsheviks did a lot of work distributing propaganda amongst sailors and soldiers.

*although it's difficult for me -- or any wealthy westerner for that matter -- to be analysing what active revolutionaries are doing, and dying for, whilst I'm sat in my warm home behind a computer, with food regularly on my table.

Lyev

6th April 2010, 23:31

o hai guys, how bout we all live in peace with the indian bourgeois state and read rosa luxembourg while our land becomes bauxite mines
where on earth was reading "luxembourg" (sic) suggested? And no one here is positing pacifism is a feasible solution for the Naxalites. Furthermore, whilst it shows us the strength and confidence of our Indian comrades, how is this attack on government paramilitaries conducive to stopping the development of bauxite mines?

bailey_187

6th April 2010, 23:38

And, on "desertions and switching sides", this is definitely something for the Naxalites to work on*. In the months running up to October '17, the Bolsheviks did a lot of work distributing propaganda amongst sailors and soldiers.

I'm not saying the Maoists shouldnt, and IIRC they have been trying to get Police to defect. However, there is a difference with October.

In October the soldiers were fighting Germans. The Bolsheviks convinced them to turn their guns on the state, only after the Russian army was so demoralised by high casualties and no prospect of wining.
In India, the Army/Police purpose is to destroy the Maoists and defend the state. As far as i know, the Indian Army/Police is no where near as demoralised as the Russian Army of 1917.

Lyev

6th April 2010, 23:58

I'm not saying the Maoists shouldnt, and IIRC they have been trying to get Police to defect. However, there is a difference with October.

In October the soldiers were fighting Germans. The Bolsheviks convinced them to turn their guns on the state, only after the Russian army was so demoralised by high casualties and no prospect of wining.
In India, the Army/Police purpose is to destroy the Maoists and defend the state. As far as i know, the Indian Army/Police is no where near as demoralised as the Russian Army of 1917.
That's a good point actually. I try to use 1917 Russia as a lesson and example as much as possible, but the fact of the matter is, India in 2010 isn't Russia in 1917. The material conditions simply aren't the same. WWI played a huge part in revolutionary upheaval in Russia. Although, the point that can be applied to 2010 and 1917; it's valuable, "when revolution is in the air", to get the army and police on your side.

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 04:29

Are you trying to be called an armchair revolutionary? What do you suggest the Maoists do? Convert to left communism and become pacifists?

am i the only one that finds this rhetoric annoying? you have some internet douche schooling a 40something guy that was tortured in an a military prison about his so called "pacifism". i am sure all of you shit-sticks and jokerboys who thanked him are glorious soldiers of the people's revolution.

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 04:32

:captain cuba sniggers at his post because he called someone an armchair:

:captain cuba proceeds to buy some chips and play some videogames:

Invincible Summer

7th April 2010, 04:37

:captain cuba sniggers at his post because he called someone an armchair:

:captain cuba proceeds to buy some chips and play some videogames:

To be fair, this discourse is annoying too.

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 04:38

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/07/stories/2010040754201200.htm
This article begs to differ.

I've read that India spends much of its military budget buying and maintaining air craft carrier, planes, tanks and naval vessels so that they inevitably neglect the training and equipment of much of its internal security forces.

Members of the CRPF are lucky if they could have a second-hand AK-47---Which is still better on average than the Maoist guerilla fighters, of course.

Anyway, they seem to have placed too much importance on dealing with external "threats" like Pakistan and China.
The Indian paramilitary forces are trained enough, but NOT ENOUGH TO STAND IN THE PATH OF REVOLUTION. NONE IN THIS WORLD IS.
The article you have pointed is nothing but putting lame excuses by big Indian medias favoring the defeat. They are still hoping that will much more training and better equipments, they can stop the revolutionary process going on.

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 04:38

To add to this discussion, yes I don't think this means the world is nearer to communist revolution. you cannot blow up a social relationship. The glorious revolution of the people has as much relationship to the people as watching politicians in television. Its a political struggle between factions, that is for sure. We can drown in the blood of all the cops and soldiers in the world, and you know what, still capitalism could be fully functioning.

Barry Lyndon

7th April 2010, 04:40

am i the only one that finds this rhetoric annoying? you have some internet douche schooling a 40something guy that was tortured in an a military prison about his so called "pacifism". i am sure all of you shit-sticks and jokerboys who thanked him are glorious soldiers of the people's revolution. Is that true? That's terrible. Was this during the Turkish military dictatorship, or more recently? I salute a brave comrade if thats the case. But how could Captain Cuba have known?

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 04:48

This is not clear. Please explain.
Pretty simple, the matter that I have discussed in the "Racism in India" thread. If you watch Bollywood movies, you can see white, pointed nose Indian "Heroes" fighting the ugly, black villains. The color differentiation in the so-called Indian mainstream movies is very much differentiated. So much, if they were made in USA or some other European countries, you can easily call those films based on "apartheid" ideas. But, the great leader of DEAD non-aligned movement, the worlds biggest democracy is never blamed for that despite the "mainstream" Indian films are well known around the world. If you watch them, you can also observe that the white, pointed nose Hero is somehow related to either army or some kind of armed forces and he often gives lectures (dialogues) about how the bloody "human rightists" are protecting the criminals, which the armed hero, representative of the Indian state want to destroy with his IRON FIST.
But, in the case like above, the state is receiving a test of the medicine of its own. The crying has already started that whether "paramilitary force personals and soldiers have human rights or not" etc type. But, at least that is an indication that the events are not going as per "script" written by the WORLDS BIGGEST DEMOCRACY.
Actually I am curious whether there is any Russian or citizens of the former republics of USSR is here in this website or not. We are told the mainstream Bollywood films were very much popular in those countries. I am curious to know about their reactions.

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 05:52

Does anybody here honestly think that something like this brings the working class even one step closer to power?

Yes. I do. The armed struggle of the People's War is aimed at displacing the state - it's armed thugs and it's institutions. In the most underdeveloped tribal areas like Lalgarh and the forests, there have never been schools or hospitals for the people, and all they've known of the state is it's policemen and soldiers. By taking armed action to eliminate these police stations and army barracks, and defend peasants and tribals from their patrols, the Maoists are free to work amongst the people and encourage them to organise to change both the world around them and in the process, themselves.

There is a false dichotomy being created here between armed struggle and political organising among the working masses. The Maoists do *not* substitute armed struggle for political organising. They resort to armed struggle because in the conditions of India, without it they cannot carry out political organising. The police and the private armies of the landlords respond to any challenge to their power with violence, thus it is necessary for the people to arm themselves and take violent action against the police and the private armies of the landlords if they seek to achieve power.

The People's War in the countryside is aimed at destroying the police, the tax collectors, the money lenders, all the oppressive government institutions that prevent the people from exercising political power. Once these have been displaced, that opens up space for people's power to emerge, for land reform to be carried out, for working people to control the fields they till and the workplaces they work in. The aim of the People's War is to build 'base areas', or 'liberated zones', which are areas where the state has been entirely displaced aside from it's periodic military incursions, where this absence of the state is enforced by the people's army and where the revolutionary forces, integrated with the masses, can transform society and destroy oppressive and exploitative practices, institutions and traditions. This was achieved in the past decade in Nepal, and is being achieved in many areas across India.

The facts speak for themselves. People's War works, and it is working right now in India. This succesful attack on the murderers, rapists and general scum that make up the CPRF should be celebrated by us all. It indicates that the oppressed people of India now have a well trained, well armed and very effective people's army at their disposal, which can defend their liberated areas against attack and back up their attempts to challenge the power of the landlords and capitalists. The Naxalite military is divided into two categories:

1. The People's Liberation Guerilla Army, which is the branch responsible for this succesful attack. It has the most sophisticated weapons, battle experience, general training etc The PLGA are the heavy hitters in the revolutionary armed struggle.

2. A system of People's Militias organised in the areas where the Maoists have a presence, made up of poor peasants and tribal people who want to defend their communities from police attack and who want to transform their lives without the military being able to come in and tell them at the point of a gun to stop. There are no accurate figures for how many people are involved in these militias, but the Maoists have significant presence in about a third of India and they organise these militias whereever they can. There will always be more militia members than guns, so it is even harder to tell. The organisation is underground after all.

A case that sheds a lot of light on this is the recent Lalgarh uprising. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalgarh) Oppressed tribal people, mostly poor peasants, overthrew the state government, wiped out the police stations and offices of the reactionary CPM and declared their area an autonomous liberated zone under the control of the People's Committee against Police Atrocities, a group closely linked with the Maoists. Thousands of women and children marched onto the roads to try and block the police as human shields. Thousands of men and women with bows and arrows slowed down the police advance. And in the midst of this, with trees being cut down as road blocks and people organising to defend their communities, the armed forces of the CPI (Maoist) were slipping through the woods to attack invading paramilitaries, laying mines to blow up their vehicles and attacking their camps. The Maoist struggle and the people's struggle is one, and indeed if you read Arundhati Roy's recent report on the struggle it becomes apparent that the Maoist party and the people are truly one.

The fact that the CPRF murderers may have once been born into peasant families, or urban working class families is irrelevant. They chose their path, and if they had any problem with running around the countryside raping women, murdering peasants and burning down villages they'd quit. If they choose not to quit, if they continue in their line of work, they deserve everything that's coming to them. This was revolutionary justice.

The following excerpts from Arundhati Roy's recent report on the People's War should shed a lot of light on how the Maoists work and what they're seeking to achieve. Roy travelled into the jungle and travelled with the Maoists, seeing first hand how they operate.

(PWG = People's War Group, one of the Naxalite factions that later merged with others to form the CPI (Maoist))

The PWG were not the first evangelicals to arrive in Dandakaranya. Baba Amte, the well-known Gandhian had opened his ashram and leprosy hospital in Warora in 1975. The Ramakrishna mission had begun opening village schools in the remote forests of Abhujmad. In North Bastar, Baba Bihari Das had started an aggressive drive to ‘bring tribals back into the Hindu fold’, which involved a campaign to denigrate tribal culture, induce self-hatred, and introduce Hinduism’s great gift—caste. The first converts, the village chiefs and big landlords— people like Mahendra Karma, founder of the Salwa Judum—were conferred the status of Dwij, twice born, Brahmins. (Of course this was a bit of a scam, because nobody can become a Brahmin. If they could, we’d be a nation of Brahmins by now.) But this counterfeit Hinduism is considered good enough for tribal people, just like the counterfeit brands of everything else—biscuits, soap, matches, oil—that are sold in village markets. As part of the Hindutva drive the names of villages were changed in land records, as a result of which most have two names now, peoples’ names and government names. Innar village for example, became Chinnari. On voters lists tribal names were changed to Hindu names. (Massa Karma became Mahendra Karma.) Those who did not come forward to join the Hindu fold were declared ‘Katwas’ (by which they meant Untouchables) who later became the natural constituency for the Maoists.

The PWG first began work in South Bastar and Gadchiroli. Comrade Venu describes those first months in some detail: How the villagers were suspicious of them, and wouldn’t let them into their homes. No one would offer them food or water. The police spread rumours that they were thieves. The women hid their jewellery in the ashes of their wood stoves. There was an enormous amount of repression. In November 1980, in Gadchiroli the police opened fire at a village meeting and killed an entire squad. That was DKs first ‘encounter’ killing. It was a traumatic set back, and the comrades retreated across the Godavari and returned to Adilabad.

But in 1981 they returned. They began to organize tribal people to demand a rise in the price they were being paid for Tendu leaves (which are used to make beedis). At the time, traders paid 3 paisa for a bundle of about 50 leaves. It was a formidable job to organize people entirely unfamiliar with this kind of politics, to lead them on strike.

Eventually the strike was successful and the price was doubled, to 6 paisa a bundle. But the real success for the Party was to have been able to demonstrate the value of unity and a new way of conducting a political negotiation. Today, after several strikes and agitations, the price of a bundle of Tendu leaves is Rs 1. (It seems a little improbable at these rates, but the turnover of the Tendu business runs into hundreds of crores of rupees.) Every season the Government floats tenders and gives contractors permission to extract a fixed volume of Tendu leaves — usually between 1500 and 5000 standard bags known as manak boras. Each manak bora contains about 1000 bundles.

(Of course there’s no way of ensuring that the contractors don’t extract more than they’re meant to.) By the time the Tendu enters the market it is sold in kilos. The slippery arithmetic and the sly system of measurement that converts bundles into manak boras into kilos is controlled by the contractors, and leaves plenty of room for manipulation of the worst kind. The most conservative estimate puts their profit per standard bag at about Rs 1100. (That’s after paying the Party a commission of Rs 120 per bag.) Even by that gauge, a small contractor (1500 bags) makes about Rs 16 lakh a season and a big one (5000 bags) upto Rs 55 lakh.

A more realistic estimate would be several times this amount. Meanwhile the Gravest Internal Security Threat makes just enough to stay alive until the next season.

....................

We return to the history lesson. The Party’s next big struggle, Comrade Venu says, was against the Ballarpur Paper Mills. The Government had given the Thapars a 45-year contract to extract 1.5 lakh tonnes of bamboo at a hugely subsidized rate. (Small beer compared to bauxite, but still). The tribals were paid 10 paisa for a bundle which contained 20 culms of bamboo. (I won’t yield to the vulgar temptation of comparing that with the profits the Thapars were making.) A long agitation, a strike, followed by negotiations with officials of the Paper Mill in the presence of the people, tripled the price to 30 paisa per bundle. For the tribal people these were huge achievements. Other political parties had made promises, but showed no signs of keeping them. People began to approach the PWG asking whether they could join up.

But the politics of Tendu, bamboo and other forest produce was seasonal. The perennial problem, the real bane of peoples’ lives was the biggest landlord of all, the Forest Department. Every morning forest officials, even the most junior of them, would appear in villages like a bad dream, preventing people from ploughing their fields, collecting firewood, plucking leaves, picking fruit, grazing their cattle, from living. They brought elephants to overrun fields and scattered babool seeds to destroy the soil as they passed by. People would be beaten, arrested, humiliated, their crops destroyed. Of course, from the Forest Department’s point of view, these were illegal people engaged in unconstitutional activity, and the Department was only implementing the Rule of Law. (Their sexual exploitation of women was just an added perk in a hardship posting)

Emboldened by the peoples’ participation in these struggles, the Party decided to confront the Forest Department. It encouraged people to take over forest land and cultivate it. The Forest Department retaliated by burning new villages that came up in forest areas. In 1986 it announced a National Park in Bijapur, which meant the eviction of 60 villages. More than half of them had already been moved out and construction of National Park infrastructure had begun when the Party moved in. It demolished the construction and stopped the eviction of the remaining villages. It prevented the Forest Department from entering the area. On a few occasions, officials were captured, tied to trees and beaten by villagers. It was cathartic revenge for generations of exploitation. Eventually the Forest Department fled. Between 1986 and 2000, the Party re-distributed 300,000 acres of forestland. Today, Comrade Venu says, there are no landless peasants in Dandakaranya.

For today’s generation of young people, the Forest Department is a distant memory, the stuff of stories mothers tell their children, about a mythological past of bondage and humiliation. For the older generation, freedom from the Forest Department meant genuine freedom. They could touch it, taste it. It meant far more than India’s Independence ever did. They began to rally to the Party that had struggled with them.

The seven-squad team had come a long way. It’s influence now ranged across a 60,000 sq kilometer stretch of forest, thousands of villages and millions of people.

But the departure of the Forest Department heralded the arrival of the police. That set off a cycle of bloodshed. Fake ‘encounters’ by the police, ambushes by the PWG. With the re-distribution of land came other responsibilities: irrigation, agricultural productivity, and the problem of an expanding population arbitrarily clearing forestland. A decision was taken to separate ‘mass work’ and ‘military work’.

Today, Dandakaranya is administered by an elaborate structure of Jantana Sarkars (peoples governments). The organizing principles came from the Chinese revolution and the Vietnam war. Each Jantana Sarkar is elected by a cluster of villages whose combined population can range from 500 to 5000. It has nine departments: Krishi (agriculture), Vyapar-Udyog (trade and industry) Arthik (economic), Nyay (justice), Raksha (defense), Hospital (health), Jan Sampark (public relations), School-Riti Rivaj (education and culture), and Jungle. A group of Janatana Sarkars, come under an Area Committee. Three Area Committees make up a Division. There are ten Divisions in Dandakaranya.

I'd recommend people read the entire essay here. (http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/22-walking-with-the-comrades-aj-07) It sheds a lot of light on who the CPI (Maoist) are, what they are doing and why their methods are 100% necessary.

comrade_cyanide444

7th April 2010, 05:58

There are two types of Indians. Indians that descend from Dravidian people to the south (very dark skinned) and the Aryan (not to be confused with the fascist Aryan) Indians that descended from Iranic people from a region east of Pakistan. In Hindu mythology, the dark skinned people are considered evil (the Asuras), however there are some good ones. The light skinned people are generally the good guys. Hinduism was actually an Indo-Aryan religion. The caste system was established not only by social class, but also because the darker skinned Dravidians generally could only get lower level jobs thousands of years ago. In fact the CPI has done a good job in keeping this caste system away from the general public. In other parts of India, caste based discrimination is seen everywhere, even in cities. In West Bengal, it is probably only practiced in far off villages.

By paramilitaries do you mean the so called "Village Guard" or the Indian Armed Forces paramilitaries? The Maoist rebels are defending their people from both.

They ARE being attacked.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of Operation Green Hunt.

There's much media deception going on in India. Much distortion of the Maoist struggle as well as attempts to conseal military brutality. Consequently, public opinion in urban areas is clearly against the Maoists.

They should only attack those who attack them. If they are doing such, then great. It should be maintained. I just don't very much agree with Mao's ideology that much, other than his guerrilla tactic, which is brilliant. India is unique in a way. It is already very industrialized, like Russia was in 1917, but is also very rural like China during its revolution... The rebels need to begin going into urban areas to recruit some of the workers around there.... There's great unrest amongst the working class of India... The ruling class their has all the power.

Instead of working with what they have right now, they should make attempts to acquire some newer weaponry as well as focus on more advanced IEDs. A moment of silence will calm down the Indian Armed forces, though I am not sure that they care very much about the Maoist issue. I'm not an expert; I don't follow Indian news very much... Usually India has its head up its ass about Pakistan or something though. They treat the guerrillas like bandits or criminals, and don't focus much on them. Perhaps the Indian Army is indeed losing its battle against the guerrillas.

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 06:25

Devrim

7th April 2010, 07:09

Alistair, you obviously took a long time writing that answer, but utterly failed to answer the actually question I asked.

Let's just look at the question again:

Does anybody here honestly think that something like this brings the working class even one step closer to power?

Now let's look at your answer again (the first two paragraphs will do as an example):

Yes. I do. The armed struggle of the People's War is aimed at displacing the state - it's armed thugs and it's institutions. In the most underdeveloped tribal areas like Lalgarh and the forests, there have never been schools or hospitals for the people, and all they've known of the state is it's policemen and soldiers. By taking armed action to eliminate these police stations and army barracks, and defend peasants and tribals from their patrols, the Maoists are free to work amongst the people and encourage them to organise to change both the world around them and in the process, themselves.

There is a false dichotomy being created here between armed struggle and political organising among the working masses. The Maoists do *not* substitute armed struggle for political organising. They resort to armed struggle because in the conditions of India, without it they cannot carry out political organising. The police and the private armies of the landlords respond to any challenge to their power with violence, thus it is necessary for the people to arm themselves and take violent action against the police and the private armies of the landlords if they seek to achieve power.

My question was about the working class, not about some vague 'masses' or 'people'. You do at one put go as far as talking about 'the working masses', but as we both know this is a formula, which, even if it sounds a bit more Marxist, is equally ambiguous in terms of class as it includes the peasantry.

Ironically enough the only time that you do mention the term working class is in reference to the policemen who were killed:

The fact that the CPRF murderers may have once been born into peasant families, or urban working class families is irrelevant.

If this were a reading comprehension examination you would have failed miserably in completely failing to understand what the question was asking.

Devrim

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 07:14

However much I hate to hurt your ego Devrim, I wasn't just replying to you. In fact, after the word 'Yes', everything else was a general comment on the issues raised in the thread, which did include many people expressing sadness at the deaths of these poor misguided victims of Maoist aggression.

We're all familiar with 'left' communist dogmatism. To you, all struggles outside of the urban workplace are irrelevant or at the very least to be treated with suspicion.

I made another post in a thread today which I think adresses some of the issues you're raising. I said this in response to Prairie Fire:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1714048&postcount=15

Prairie Fire's argument against the revolutionary struggles in India and Nepal is flawed on several levels.

Firstly, it assumes that the Maoist movements in India and Nepal do not involve the urban working class. This is not the case. In India, the struggle is still underground and they do not carry out much in the way of urban guerilla attacks, an obviously ineffective and misguided tactic. So their strength is impossible for us to gauge with any real accuracy. However, what we do know is that the Indian Maoists see the urban working class, the slums and factories etc as very important areas of work. Just read their Urban Perspectives document to get some appreciation of that. A leader of their organisation was arrested last year and is currently being tortured and imprisoned. His name is Kobad Ghandy, and he was allegedly in charge of their urban work. The Indian comrades work very hard among the urban proletariat, but due to the conditions in India this work is underground, so we don't have reports of open CPI (Maoist) rallies in Mumbai to point at.

As for Nepal, I've made this argument plenty of times before. I don't feel the need to go into enormous detail here. The entire strategy of the UCPN (M) since 2005, and the reason they've worked openly in the cities and in the parliament since that time, is based on building up their political support and organisational strength amongst the working people in the urban areas. They have succeeded in this. Their trade unions, their student organisations, the participation in their rallies, strikes and bandhs... all of these point towards their strength as a movement. Their strategy for seizing revolutionary power is proceeding smoothly and within the next few months we will see it bear fruit, one way or another.

Yesterday they organised a series of huge rallies around the country to build support for their movement to topple the government and write a People's Constitution.

http://www.nepalnews.com/main/images/stories/igallery/peoples_mo/lightbox/apr_06_10_students_rally4_b.jpg

Who do you think is taking part in these rallies? To argue that the Maoists in Nepal ignore the working class is just dogma with no basis in reality.

In both countries, the Maoists are actively organising the proletariat. In Nepal, the struggle is at a more advanced and critical stage, but both struggles are moving ahead with massive strides. The thing you seem to be missing here is that the whole point of a revolutionary communist movement is that it brings under it's banner all struggles against all forms of oppression. Workers only get an advanced political consciousness when they learn to identify with the struggles outside of their workplace, the struggles of other people against other oppressions. Marx's famous call on British workers to identify with the Irish national struggle springs to mind.

The Maoists in India organise among the peasants, the tribals, AND the proletariat. And they see the proletariat as the leading force in the revolutionary struggle All Maoist groups are quite clear about this, and it's the rest of the left that has to examine it's sectarian and uninformed attitudes.

This thread isn't about Nepal, so let's not get into a discussion about that here. I chose not to remove the references to Nepal because it would have made the bits I wrote about India seem a little disjointed, and also we should see the struggles in both countries as one interlinked revolutionary struggle.

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 07:18

Devrim

7th April 2010, 07:36

Is that true? That's terrible. Was this during the Turkish military dictatorship, or more recently? I salute a brave comrade if thats the case. But how could Captain Cuba have known?

No, it was with Syrian security during the 90s in Lebanon. I don't talk about it a lot as I think that political ideas stand or fall on their merits, not on whether the writer has been in prison or not.

I don't know if he knew. It did come up on here on a thread recently when somebody in the US was trying to imply that unlike him people in countries like this one didn't understand political oppression, and of course people on here who know me personally know.

Are you trying to be called an armchair revolutionary?

I don't really care about being called an 'armchair revolutionary'. Actually I am sitting typing in a normal chair not an armchair, but whatever. I think the whole thing about accusing people of being 'armchair revolutionaries misses the point. What I am doing here is discussing our politics with people. For us this is an important part of our political work. Now to me whether I am writing an article for our press, making a post on the internet, talking with striking workers in a café, or selling the paper, and discussing with Palestinians in a refugee camp in West Beirut, it is all essentially part of the same activity. Although people on here might think that the last is more what it is sort of about, to me they are all part of the same thing. When I lived in Beirut, I regular sold communist papers in the refugee camps. This morning before I go to work, I am posting on here. I don't really see any qualitive difference.

One last thing on the armchair thing, last week for example, I managed to get out of my chair, and was on a workers demonstration in Ankara with about 2,000 workers and 15,000 armed riot police. One of our comrades who posts on here got gassed by the police directly in the face. Do people think that something like that makes his political arguments in any way more correct?

What do you suggest the Maoists do?

I don't have any suggestions as a whole as to what the Maoist organisations should do, just as I don't have any suggestions as to what the police should do, as I don't think there is anything socialist about them at all.

Convert to left communism and become pacifists?

We aren't pacifists.

Devrim

Devrim

7th April 2010, 07:41

When I say 'the people' or 'the masses', I'm referring to the sections of society that can be united around the revolutionary movement. Led by the proletariat, the peasants, oppressed nationalities, and sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and nationalist bourgeoisie. In the context of what we're talking about, the work the Maoists are doing amongst the masses, we're speaking mostly about peasants and tribals in the countryside and the proletariat in the cities.

Of course, you're fully aware of all this. You're just trying to make a cheap semantic point.

I am aware of what you are talking about. However, I don't think it is a semantic point at all. I don't think that these classes, or 'sectors of society' that you talk about 'uniting around the revolutionary movement are at all revolutionary.

Incidentally, despite the massiveness of the Maoist movement in India, they have virtually no influence at all amongst the working class*.

Devrim

*Please don't bother coming back with some line saying something like left communists don't have any at all. I know this already. My point is that it is quite telling that such a huge movement has hardly any connections at all with the working class.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 07:43

where on earth was reading "luxembourg" (sic) suggested?

It is a reference to left communists, who are influenced by the works of Luxemburg, and are all 'armchair revolutionaries*", and do nothing, but read books.

Devrim

*See above.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 07:45

I would rather hope the objective is the overthrow of the Indian state.

Actually I think that the objective is more likely to be to negotiate with the Indian state, as they seem to be calling for this all the time nowadays.

Devrim

Alaric

7th April 2010, 07:45

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 08:21

Incidentally, despite the massiveness of the Maoist movement in India, they have virtually no influence at all amongst the working class*.

That's an assertion, not a fact. They're an underground movement so whatever support they have is not obvious. Everyone said this about the Maoists in Nepal during the People's War, and what happened after their supporters in Kathmandu were able to openly display this support? They won half the seats in the urban areas in the election and have been calling demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.

The Maoists are not openly displaying their support in the cities. It is an *underground* movement led by an *underground* organisation.

*Please don't bother coming back with some line saying something like left communists don't have any at all. I know this already.

I don't play that game. Size doesn't determine everything, correctness of political line is not necessarily in direct relation to an organisations membership.

My point is that it is quite telling that such a huge movement has hardly any connections at all with the working class.

Assertion. Not fact.

NaxalbariZindabad

7th April 2010, 08:21

Incidentally, despite the massiveness of the Maoist movement in India, they have virtually no influence at all amongst the working class*.How in the hell can you pretend this? On what do you base this? You haven't seen reports of urban Maoist work in your local bourgeois media... is that it?
I would be willing to bet you don't know what you're talking about at all.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 08:43

How in the hell can you pretend this? On what do you base this? You haven't seen reports of urban Maoist work in your local bourgeois media... is that it?
I would be willing to bet you don't know what you're talking about at all.

No actually, I was in West Bengal at a series of political meetings earlier this year. I talked to many people including ex-Maoists, and even supporters of the Maoist groups and everybody said this to me.

Devrim

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 08:51

Devrim

7th April 2010, 10:28

Ex-Maoists are bound to say all sorts of things. And members of the phoney Maoist groups like CPI ML Liberation etc would say that - it's their justification for claiming to be Maoists yet staying above ground and opposing the People's War.

Alistair, really I am starting to worry about your reading comprehension.

No actually, I was in West Bengal at a series of political meetings earlier this year. I talked to many people including ex-Maoists, and even supporters of the Maoist groups and everybody said this to me.

Not everybody is obsessed by 'phoney Maoists' like the Maoists themslves. I meant I talked to supporters of the groups fighting the 'people's war'.

It wasn't just them though. I talked to a lot of people, from retired miners, to peasants and students. None of them thought that there was Maoist influence within the working class, even their supporters. I talked at length about the strike of 150,000 Jute Mill workers when I was in Calcutta. I heard nothing at all about Maoist interventions. In Gurgaon , I talked to people about the massive car workers’ strikes they have had there recently. Again people said there were no-Maoist interventions.

The fact that they'd say this stuff to a foreigner is hardly surprising.
I don’t think this is how this works. I know people in illegal organisations here, and I can understand that they wouldn’t want to admit their support of these organisations to a foreigner, but the idea that people would openly admit that they supported illegal organisations and then say those organisations didn't have support in a particular sector does seem quite surprising to me. Why would they do it?

That's an assertion, not a fact. They're an underground movement so whatever support they have is not obvious.
Yes, just as your assertion that they have support amongst the working class is. However, personally I find my own experience, and the fact that I have never seen anything about large scale Maoist involvement in workers' struggles slightly more convincing that the idea that they have massive secret support, which you put forward without any evidence at all from the other side of the world. People will have to make up their own minds which they think is more likely to be true.

The Maoists are not openly displaying their support in the cities. It is an *underground* movement led by an *underground* organisation.

Understanding the idea of class seems to be quite difficult for you too. When I was in Calcutta I spoke to people who supported the Maoists, and there is reasonably open support activity there*. However, the people I met who were their supporters were students, and they said they had no following in the working class.

There is a difference between living in a city and being working class.

Devrim

*I use reasonably open here by Turkish standards, not New Zealand ones.

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 12:02

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 13:04

I was talking to a Nepali comrade I know, and he said that this attack makes him think the Indians are adopting some military tactics from Nepal. The reports indicate very large numbers, between 500 to 1,000 people attacked the police station. According to my Nepali friend, this implies that there were a lot of non-cadre taking part, as the Indians were unlikely to put that many cadre in one place. These kind of mass attacks were also widely used by the Nepalis during the People's War there. Often there would be only a handful of party cadre participating in the attack, or even in the entire district, and the bulk of the attackers would be local villagers.

I don't know, ultimately, but it's possible the Indians are trying to learn from the Nepalis. This was an interesting attack in many ways. Recent details from the BBC indicate it was carried out with absolute military precision.

Police officials said the paramilitary troops, belonging to India's Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), came under attack in the densely forested Mukrana forest in Dantewada district.
The troops were returning to their camp with an armoured vehicle after a three-day-long combing operation in the area.
Home Secretary GK Pillai told the BBC that they had gone looking for rebel training camps on "specific intelligence inputs", but had not found any.
'Totally outnumbered'
An improvised explosive device detonated under an armoured vehicle just as the troops came under heavy fire from rebels positioned on a hillock, police officials said.
As the troops took cover behind the trees, they found that the rebels had booby trapped the trees with explosives. Troops in the open were gunned down by the rebels.
Police officials said that a vehicle accompanying a rescue team which rushed to the area to take away the dead and the injured was also blown up by an improvised explosive device, killing its driver.
"We were totally outnumbered. And they [rebels] had far too much ammunition. How could just 80 of us [soldiers] fight more than 1,000 of them? We got no time and no opportunity to retaliate," Pramod Kumar, one of the seven soldiers who survived the ambush, told The Times of India newspaper.

NaxalbariZindabad

7th April 2010, 13:07

We should keep in mind that India is not a democracy, and that Maoist urban organizations can't just pop up in the open and start doing agit-prop. Their supporters would quickly get arrested or killed.

But that doesn't mean efficient political work can't be done in cities by organizations without links with the people's war in the countryside. For example, a couple weeks ago there was a large public meeting in Chennai, capital of Tamil Nadu:

On Feb 20, 2010, in MGR Nagar, Chennai a huge public meeting was organized by PALA and its revolutionary organizations. The meeting was successful in exposing the actual objective of the Operation Green Hunt; that it is not just a state-declared war against the Maoists, but that it is war by the state and the ruling classes against the common people. PALA and its revolutionary organizations had campaigned about Operation Green Hunt among a large number of people in street corner meetings, factory meetings, and in buses and trains across Tamilnadu. Comrades met hundreds of people and distributed about 1.5 lakh [150,000] pamphlets; 10,000 booklets of the essay, The Heart of India is Under Attack by Arundathi Roy; a collection of English essays (published in various magazines and newspapers) exposing the Operation Green Hunt; Hall Meetings in various district headquarters; and Hindi and English pamphlets. Evidence of such a concentrated campaign for over 50 days was seen in thousands of people who had come to attend the public meeting.

Com. Mukundan, President, New Democratic Labour Front, Tamilnadu, presided over the meeting, which started off with the revolutionary salute to the martyrs. Com. Balan, advocate at the Bangalore High Court, addressed the meeting first. He listed in detail the various minerals available in the states of Orissa and Jharkhand. He also discussed how if all this mineral wealth were to be mined and taken away by the multinational corporations in the next 50 years, we will be forced to beg them for our needs in the future. He stressed on the fact that recolonization was not something that was happening only in Orissa and Jharkhand, but very much in Tamil Nadu as well. To illustrate his point, he talked about the Goundi-Vediappan hill in Thiruvanamalai, TN, which the government had sold out to Jindal, a multinational corporation. According to the deal, the government will receive only 0.02% of the total profit as royalty!
...
The talks were followed by a cultural program by PALA’s cultural troupe. The program depicted the life circumstances and oppression faced by the Adivasis. The revolutionary songs, in various aspects, showed how the ruling classes and parliamentary parties only sell away the country and how only Naxalites continue to guard the country through their relentless struggle and sacrifice.

The enormous gathering of people at the MGR Nagar market, the red-attired comrades among the crowd, the people’s response to each call for action, and the uproarious claps to each time the word Naxalbari was used were evidence of the amount of support and popularity the Naxalite movement enjoys among the people. It also showed people’s anger against the policies of recolonization. The Chennai public meeting reinstated the hope that this war against the people, declared by the ruling classes, will be completely vanquished by the red wave that will rise from the people. (source (http://springthunder.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/meetingupdates/))

The Maoists may not have overground organizations in cities, but that doesn't mean that their ideas and influence doesn't make their way into urban populations, even if this happens indirectly, or more subtly.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 13:53

We should keep in mind that India is not a democracy, and that Maoist urban organizations can't just pop up in the open and start doing agit-prop. Their supporters would quickly get arrested or killed.

India is a democracy. This is what democracy has to offer in the so-called third world, murder and repression. It is a stupid thing to compare, but I get the impresion that it is probably a little less repressive than this country. That doesn't mean that the Maoists are not repressed, murdered and arrested. Of course, they are.

The Maoists may not have overground organizations in cities, but that doesn't mean that their ideas and influence doesn't make their way into urban populations, even if this happens indirectly, or more subtly.

I didn't suggest that Maoists had no activity in cities. I suggested that they had virtually no activity within the working class, and I would go further to say that any activity that they develop with workers is not oriented towards the class struggle, but towards their own struggle.

Devrim

Devrim

7th April 2010, 14:32

Mate I have no problems understanding class. I am a worker, I work for a boss, I sell my labour-power to a capitalist... I know what the working class is. I stand on picket lines, I work in my union, I discuss things with my fellow workers. I don't need you to teach me what the working class is. I've also read Capital and plenty more besides, so on a theoretical level you have nothing to teach me there.

I suppose this is even worse really. You have a class analysis and then hen it comes to India you drop it in favour of a cross class alliance;

When I say 'the people' or 'the masses', I'm referring to the sections of society that can be united around the revolutionary movement. Led by the proletariat, the peasants, oppressed nationalities, and sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and nationalist bourgeoisie. In the context of what we're talking about, the work the Maoists are doing amongst the masses, we're speaking mostly about peasants and tribals in the countryside and the proletariat in the cities.

Except there is a problem with the whole basic theory in its own terms even.

The Maoists themselves agree they don't have enough working class support.

My impression was virtually none. I never heard of Maoists being active in the mass workers' struggles that were going on, and I spoke to people who had been and asked them specifically about Maoists.

while nobody claims that the Maoists have mass support, I know several Indians both supportive and very opposed to the People's War who say that the Maoists have some support amongst the working class in India, particularly some of the most viciously oppressed and unorganised sections of it in the slums etc

I think that the first thing to point out here is that the urban poor recently migrated from their villages, however oppressed, desperate, and poor they may be are not necessarily a part of the working class. In fact in the so-called third world, they often play a distinctly reactionary role in support of religious movements. This is not to say that they can not be proletarianised.

I think that this is a profoundly important point about class, and the way that communists understand it. The poorest sectors of society are not necessarily synonymous with the working class. Some workers do exist as part of this strata. Others don't. Some workers are (comparatively) well paid. I can remember in the Wapping printers strike in the 1980s so called 'anarchists' arguing against the printers because they were overpaid.

Class is not determined by income, but by relationship to the means of production. A recent example in this country would be attempts to turn the urban poor against striking TEKEL workers by arguing that the were overpaid anyway(just less than €600 a month if anyone is interested).

The tribals and the peasantry, however poor , they are and however oppressed they are, are not part of the working class.

Which is where the problem with this theory comes up. The Maoists claim that this cross class alliance is led by the working class, but then they have admitted on here that they have very little support in the working class, which raises the question of when you get past all of the 'theory' and leftist phraseology, just which class is leading this movement because it isn't the working class.

Devrim

Devrim

7th April 2010, 14:44

A few other things, Alistair,

as they made clear in their Urban Perspectives document.

Is this a public document? If so could you link to it, please? If not then something that refers to it?

I never said they had 'massive' support.

My impression, which I got from virtually everyone I talked to is that the Maoists had widespread support amongst the poorest and most oppressed segments of society. I don't know how you define 'massive', but I think that it is a fair term to use.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that I don't know any Indians, or people who've been to India.

I don't think that I was assuming that, nor do I think it is that relevant. The relevant thing is do you know or have you talked to people involved in workers' struggles in India.

India's a big country. West Bengal isn't representative of all of it.

Yes, I know. Tell me about it. I spent twenty-five hours sharing a seat on a train with a carriage full of ISKCON loonies on the way to some religious festival singing their song, which does get quite repetitive after an hour or sixteen.

I was at meetings in other places two including the industrial towns around Delhi. I mentioned West Bengal as it is one of the Maoist heart lands, and I spoke to more Maoist supporters ex-Maoists there.

Devrim

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 15:01

No actually, I was in West Bengal at a series of political meetings earlier this year. I talked to many people including ex-Maoists, and even supporters of the Maoist groups and everybody said this to me.

Devrim
REALLY! I am curious to know where have you stayed during that period in which circumstances you have talked to people. I hope you know about the demonic UAPA, as per which even openly supporting CPI(Maoist) is a criminal offense and you can be indefinitely thrown to jail for that. In such a scenario, you have talked with just a few people and understand that "Maoists have no base among workers"?

Devrim

7th April 2010, 15:04

REALLY! I am curious to know where have you stayed during that period in which circumstances you have talked to people.

I stayed and met with members and supporters of our organisation in rural West Bengal and Calcutta. I met people who were Maoist supporters through them. I was also at meetings in Northern India in the industrial towns around Delhi.

Devrim

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 15:09

On a discussion on TV channel named "Star Ananda", Bolan Gangopadhaya, one of the intellectuals who had previously visited Nandigram and other areas, told that she had visited the Kalinganagar region of the state of Orissa and found that the POLICE (Yes, it's a fact) had put landmines surrounding a village and poor villagers were died by that mines. Such incidents had never reported in the mainstream media. She has reported, how all the basic needs had been withdrawn by the STATE ITSELF in the Kalinganagar region, to bend down the "naughty" villagers who are opposing the establishment of Steel plant by POSCO company. ALL ARE FACT.
Dannyboy, I just want to know your reaction regarding that matter. So far, huge amount of information regarding illegal and unethical detention for just saying against the state, burning of houses and raping of women and other such atrocities, which had been done by the state, been reported in websites like www.icawpi.org and other such websites. But, I have rarely seen you participating in the discussions and opposing the state atrocities. But now, when you are nearly about to burst into tears when some armed personnel were died in a combating situation. It's seems silly to me.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 15:09

Also it fits in exactly with what I know of Maoists in this country, where they are not really involved in workers struggles either.

Devrim

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 15:18

I stayed and met with members and supporters of our organisation in rural West Bengal and Calcutta. I met people who were Maoist supporters through them. I was also at meetings in Northern India in the industrial towns around Delhi.

Devrim
Then probably you have forgot the fact that the UAPA was there (and is still there) during the visit. Moreover, during the 90's, upper class city dwelling had grown a peculiar mentality. Being a center of left ideology and workers struggle for a long time, reactionary class of other states of India often attack people of West Bengal and openly calling them responsible for de-industrialization of West Bengal. As per them, due to labor unrest, all the capitalist industrialists had turned their face from West Bengal and now it is a comparatively poorer state. In such a scenario, city dwelling upper class of West Bengal, often show that they are ASHAMED to be Bengali (to many people of India, "left ideology" and West Bengal are often synonymous) and often openly condemn workers struggle and the past. In such a scenario, I don't think that IT'S ENOUGH TO TALK WITH A FEW CITY DWELLING PEOPLE TO GET THE REAL PICTURE.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 15:26

In such a scenario, city dwelling upper class of West Bengal, often show that they are ASHAMED to be Bengali (to many people of India, "left ideology" and West Bengal are often synonymous) and often openly condemn workers struggle and the past. In such a scenario, I don't think that IT'S ENOUGH TO TALK WITH A FEW CITY DWELLING PEOPLE TO GET THE REAL PICTURE.

I wasn't talking to a 'few city dwelling people', I was talking to people who were communists, and worker militants and people I met through them. Certainly not people who would 'openly condemn workers struggle'.

Devrim

Saorsa

7th April 2010, 15:26

I suppose this is even worse really. You have a class analysis and then hen it comes to India you drop it in favour of a cross class alliance;

Sort of. I believe that in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries like India the struggle takes a different form to what it would here, and it is possible to make alliances that you wouldn't in New Zealand. Ultimately I think the forces on the ground will determine the strategy that is necessary.

The relevant thing is do you know or have you talked to people involved in workers' struggles in India.

Yes. Not many, not as many as you for sure, but some.

The urban perspectives document can be found here. (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/documents/papers/Urbanperspective.htm)

I think the key differences in our two approaches is this. I think, and most Maoists think, that the revolution is made up of all forces and individuals who can be united around it's banner. The decisive class is the proletariat, obviously, but ultimately the revolutionary movement is much bigger than just the proletariat fighting for it's own class intererests. It is a movement against all forms of oppression, mobilising all who are currently oppressed, and out of this milieu of social forces, from gay people and black people to women and immigrants, a movement becomes possible that can destroy the power of the state and build a new world. A revolution is the oppressed overthrowing the oppressor, and the real question is not the methods and tactics employed to achieve revolution, but rather how the society that is formed afterwards allows for the proletariat to express its class interests and exercise political power. So it doesn't concern me that at this early stage in the development of the Indian revolution, a stage of strategic defense, the main role of the CPI (Maoist) is in defending tribals and poor peasants from the state's attacks and organising to throw the state out of ever wider base areas. It doesn't bother me that they're organising in the slums rather than amongst comparatively privileged IT workers or whatever.

While what you're saying is true, and the majority of people involved in the People's War are not proletarian, that doesn't concern me. The majority of people in India are not proletarian. The Maoists are committed young men and women seeking to fight against oppression and for a better, communist world, and if they see the most suitable arena for their work as amongst tribals, or dalits, or slumdwellers, or peasants, I don't see the need to criticise them for trying to challenge the ruling class in other ways than just workplace industrial organising. A revolution needs to encompass *all* struggles, and involve all oppressed classes and groups.

You, on the other hand, seem to take the attitude that since the proletariat, as the productive class, is the class with decisive power, even in a country like India which is overwhelmingly populated by poor peasants the communists should steer clear of the countryside and instead focus their efforts on the urban proletariat. And that they cannot even strike a balance which I think it is obvious the Maoists are striking, between underground urban work amongst the workers and revolutionary armed struggle in the countryside.

What do you expect the Maoists to do? Really? To show up on the picket line openly identifying themselves as CPI (Maoist) cadre and start selling their paper? Or perhaps they should get jobs in factories, openly declare to the world who they are and try to form a strike committee? You're asking them to commit suicide to prove to skeptics like you that there is support for the Maoists among the working class.

I don't think the Maoists have anything to prove to us. I think they need to just keep on doing what they're doing, and as their movement grows in strength they can show the world what kind of future they're talking about.

pranabjyoti

7th April 2010, 16:55

Also it fits in exactly with what I know of Maoists in this country, where they are not really involved in workers struggles either.

Devrim
I hope you also know that they are "banned" in India and sorry to say, workers are mostly under the influence of worst kind of "mainstream" parties like the CPI(Marxist), Trinamool Congress, Indian National Congress etc and due to the long legacy of going on in the "legalist" pathway, it is very very hard to organize workers by a party, which is banned. This kind of action can only be taken in countries, where workers have a legacy of struggle and is ready to go on the "military" mode any time. As for example, I have seen video images of French workers breaking and destroying the office of Mittal Steel. In Europe and other first world countries, people are mostly workers and have fighting mentality in them.
But the scenario is different in countries like India. Here industrial workers constitute a very small percentage of population, much small in comparison to the industrialized countries. A large section of the people is petty-bourgeoisie like small businessmen, small farmers and people who are independent service providers of producers. They are not directly related and benefited by industrial production and their standard of living is low in comparison to industrial and organized workers because of their low level of productivity, both production and service. Their feeling is often anti-worker and this kind of mentality now prevails over a large section of "common people" of India. I hope you can understand how difficult is organizing a worker struggle by a banned party or organization in such a scenario.

comrade_cyanide444

7th April 2010, 19:13

It's also worth mentioning the Salwa Judum. The Indian state is using the Hamlet techniques that the US used in Vietnam, herding poor peasants into concentration camps under armed guard and then saying that anybody who didn't move into the concentration camps is a Maoist and can be shot on sight. There is quite literally a genocide taking place in India at the moment, and anyone who says the peasants who are being driven either into the jungles or into the concentration camps should not resist with violence is seriously deluded.

That's what I was looking for. I forgot the name, but basically these peasants are being pushed into camps "for their safety", where oppression is very high by both Indian Forces and the Salwa Judum. So technically there are the Indian right-winged paramilitaries, the village guard, and the Maoist guerrillas. Sort of reminds me of Colombia...

workers are mostly under the influence of worst kind of "mainstream" parties like the CPI(Marxist), Trinamool Congress, Indian National Congress etc

I don't think that the CPI/M, it's just that their leaders are total pussies.... They are afraid to associate with the guerrillas, and they don't want to seem too radical....

In India, the worker's struggle is very difficult. It may not be that bad in areas that are well developed, but the people that are in less developed lands still practice the caste system: probably one of the most blatant social classifications ever. They have to convince the CPI to take action with the workers. However, do not be fooled, the CPI/M has taken some initiative. For example, they often rally against the BJP, they rally workers together. So they are not nothing. However, they tend to shy away from the guerrillas, because the moment they complement their revolutionary efforts, they anger a whole bunch of their supporters who may have relatives in the Indian Armed Forces.

HELD at Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh, on March 3, the big rally of peasants and agricultural labourers reflected their resolve to fight the climate of uncertainty of life, unbearable poverty, unemployment and landlord oppression under the BJP rule. Carrying red banners, thousands of peasants and agricultural workers came for the rally from as far afield as Saharanpur, Gorakhpur and Banda. Many of them came from the newly carved out state of Uttaranchal also. (The people of this new state, however, prefer the name Uttarakhand to that given by the BJP government.)
It was the first time in twelve years that the two major Left forces in UP came together to protest against the policies of the BJP-led governments at the centre and in the state.
Presided over by CPI(M) state secretariat member Ambika Prasad Mishra, the rally was addressed by CPI(M) general secretary Harkishan Singh Surjeet, CPI general secretary A B Bardhan, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Prakash Karat, CPI(M) state secretary Ram Kumar Yadav, CPI(M) Central Committee member Suneet Chopra, CPI(M) state secretariat member Daulat Ram, CPI National Executive member Atul Kumar Anjan and other leaders of the CPI.
The various speakers stressed how the BJP-led governments at the centre and in the state were ruining Indian agriculture by bending over backwards to please the USA and WTO. They cited the decline in foodgrain production, employment opportunities and prices as a result of these policies. They castigated the government’s abandonment of the public distribution system, the opening up of our agrarian market to dumping by US multinationals and other foreign producers, the reversal of land reforms and the increasing cost of inputs like fertilisers, electricity and irrigation as a result of the globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation drive launched by the BJP and its allies.
In fact, the increased duty on palm oil and decrease in duty on soya bean oil was pointed out as an attempt to curb the import of palm oil from Malaysia and favour the soya bean imports from the US. The speakers also lambasted the union budget for the manner in which the finance minister had overstepped economic limits and advised increasing the minimum number of employees necessary for labour laws to operate from 100 at present to 1000, giving a clean chit to employers to hire and fire at will. The drying up of rural credit by taxing the NABARD and cooperative banks, reducing the rates of interest on provident fund and the shady BALCO deal also came in for sharp criticism. The rally warned that the attacks on trade union rights of labour would not be tolerated by peasants and agricultural workers.
The speakers called for massive resistance to these policies and a call was given to make the action by the Joint Action Committee of Peasants and Agricultural Workers Organisations for March 29-30 a resounding success. The speakers warned that actions by the peasants and agricultural workers would continue until these anti-people policies were reversed. The need for building a powerful third alternative to achieve this end was stressed.
Closing the rally, CPI(M) general secretary Harkishan Singh Surjeet warned the peasants and agricultural labourers against the divisive forces trying to divert the rural masses along casteist and communal lines so that they are not able to go ahead on the path of class struggle. The latter is quite necessary today if the ruin of our peasantry and the rural poor were to be avoided.
The rally closed with chairman Ambika Prasad Mishra congratulating the participants and calling on them to proceed along the path of relentless struggle till concrete gains were made, the anti-people policies of the BJP-led state and central governments were pushed back and these governments were forced to change their direction.

red cat

7th April 2010, 19:20

That's what I was looking for. I forgot the name, but basically these peasants are being pushed into camps "for their safety", where oppression is very high by both Indian Forces and the Salwa Judum. So technically there are the Indian right-winged paramilitaries, the village guard, and the Maoist guerrillas. Sort of reminds me of Colombia...

I don't think that the CPI/M, it's just that their leaders are total pussies.... They are afraid to associate with the guerrillas, and they don't want to seem too radical....

In India, the worker's struggle is very difficult. It may not be that bad in areas that are well developed, but the people that are in less developed lands still practice the caste system: probably one of the most blatant social classifications ever. They have to convince the CPI to take action with the workers. However, do not be fooled, the CPI/M has taken some initiative. For example, they often rally against the BJP, they rally workers together. So they are not nothing. However, they tend to shy away from the guerrillas, because the moment they complement their revolutionary efforts, they anger a whole bunch of their supporters who may have relatives in the Indian Armed Forces.

Are you aware of what the CPI(M) has done in Singhur, Nandigram and Lalgarh ?

Devrim

7th April 2010, 20:25

I don't think that the CPI/M, it's just that their leaders are total pussies.... They are afraid to associate with the guerrillas, and they don't want to seem too radical....

It is not that the CPI-M are 'total pussies' who are afraid to 'seem too radical'. They are a capitalist party, which runs three states in India.

Devrim

Lyev

7th April 2010, 21:08

manic expression

7th April 2010, 21:56

More great news from India. Over 70 casualties in an ambush is no small matter, it shows us that the Maoists are for real, and they aren't afraid to push the issue. All revolutionaries must show solidarity with our Indian comrades in the days and months and years to come.

The relevance of this ambush is that as the strength, discipline and support of the Maoists grows, so too does the threat they pose to the capitalist state. It's almost inconceivable that the insurgency could have developed into a force capable of such an operation without widespread support in the countryside or at least some organization within urban centers. Just as the Cuban Revolution was made from guerrillas and an urban resistance, both of which grew in power and confidence as the struggle went on, so too are our Indian comrades forming and using the tools with which to smash the bourgeois state. Even if we establish that the Maoists have little open presence in the cities (which has been more than adequately explained and put into proper context), it is still evident that the Maoists are working to build on the presence they already have:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8546427.stm

I don't think he was in Calcutta because he liked the nightlife, and I don't think urban-based Maoists are going to advertise their political stances if they're subject to immediate arrest.

am i the only one that finds this rhetoric annoying? you have some internet douche schooling a 40something guy that was tortured in an a military prison about his so called "pacifism". i am sure all of you shit-sticks and jokerboys who thanked him are glorious soldiers of the people's revolution.
This is a weak argument from a weak mind. All sorts of people get tortured in military prisons...it doesn't make them revolutionaries, it doesn't make their politics any more correct, it doesn't determine whether or not they are pacifists. Most immediately, however, it doesn't make the people they disagree with "internet douches". That would be a weak argument, formulated in a weak mind.

Does anybody here honestly think that something like this brings the working class even one step closer to power?
Marx thought far less brought the working class much closer to power. He said as much, quite clearly, in 1856:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1856/letters/56_04_16.htm

The whole thing in Germany will depend on whether it is possible to back the Proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants war. In which case the affair should go swimmingly.

Perhaps you could explain why you think Marx was talking nonsense.

Devrim

7th April 2010, 22:15

Alistair, you seem to have replied in a very different, and may I say very honest, style than the style of the polemics that usually go on between our current and yours on here. I hope I can manage to do the same.

I think the key differences in our two approaches is this. I think, and most Maoists think, that the revolution is made up of all forces and individuals who can be united around it's banner.

We, on the other hand, think that the working class is the revolutionary class. It is a very simple statement, and seems a lot more simple if viewed from New Zealand or Western Europe. I think that the peasant question is of vital importance. We can't approach it thinking that all the world is like England, which has no peasantry, or New Zealand, which I don't know, but imagine doesn't either. Certainly we have to have more to offer than mouthing clichés though.

What you seem to be putting forward appears to me to be a very voluntaristic approach.

In a way it reminds me of what FSL said about one of the armed Greek groups in another thread:

And by the way, I'd like to see some comments on the cells of fire previous statement. Where they said that any ideology that designates a class as revolutionary is akin to racism and that the only thing that matters is people's conscience.

Now, I am not saying that you would suggest that a class approach is akin to racism, but it seems to me to have the same voluntaristic base. Revolution become snot a matter of the balance of class forces, but a matter of will, not of classes but of interest groups.

The decisive class is the proletariat, obviously, but ultimately the revolutionary movement is much bigger than just the proletariat fighting for it's own class intererests. It is a movement against all forms of oppression, mobilising all who are currently oppressed,

I would agree that the revolution is much more than 'the proletariat fighting for it's own class interests'. It is about the liberation of humanity. The question is whether this is something that can be achieved by a vague alliance of 'progressive forces', or is something that only the working class can achieve.

and out of this milieu of social forces, from gay people and black people to women and immigrants, a movement becomes possible that can destroy the power of the state and build a new world.

In a way this is akin to what the Euro communists were proposing, a sort of 'rainbow coalition'. In another way I guess I find it some what ironic, given that many of the groups that people who hold these sort of groups support in the so-called third world, would often have completely ideas that would be completely unacceptable about certain social issues, particularly homosexuality, but also on some women's issues.

I'm not one to go on about the reactionary social positions of various groups that people support. I have never criticised HAMAS or Hezbullah for example because they are homophobic. I criticise them because they are nationalists. Generally groups reflect the dominant ideology in society to a certain extent. I think we have some people in our organisation in this country who are 'homophobic' or at least would be accused of it by some people on this board. It's not that they think gays should be discriminated against. They don't. Homosexuality just makes them uncomfortable. In my opinion that is a result of societal pressure. I don't think that most of the Maoist guerrillas would have a very 'modern' attitude towards homosexuality. Nor would I expect them to. I do see irony in that people who talk about these sort of disparate forces, often end up supporting the kind of people who they would ban from posting on this board, and certainly would not invite to dinner.

A revolution is the oppressed overthrowing the oppressor, and the real question is not the methods and tactics employed to achieve revolution, but rather how the society that is formed afterwards allows for the proletariat to express its class interests and exercise political power.

I think that the methods and tactics are crucial in this. The process of a class revolution involves the working class becoming what Marx termed 'a class for itself'. If it fails to become this it won't be able to express its interest and exercise power after the 'revolution'.

So it doesn't concern me that at this early stage in the development of the Indian revolution, a stage of strategic defense, the main role of the CPI (Maoist) is in defending tribals and poor peasants from the state's attacks and organising to throw the state out of ever wider base areas.

I don't believe that they do protect the tribals and the peasants. I think that what happens in these sort of situations in that the people being protected actually become the victims of both sides in a war, which is not being fought in their interests. It sort of reminds me of Kurdish villages being attacked by both the state and the nationalists for 'helping the other side'.

It doesn't bother me that they're organising in the slums rather than amongst comparatively privileged IT workers or whatever.

I wasn't actually talking about IT wokers. I mentioned two recent struggles in India. The massive strike by Jute Mill workers in Calcutta, and the strikes in Gurgaon mainly in the auto sector. Not that I think that IT workers aren't working class.

While what you're saying is true, and the majority of people involved in the People's War are not proletarian, that doesn't concern me. The majority of people in India are not proletarian.

You are right. The peasantry is massive in India. I don't think that it is just a matter of people's sociological origins. One of the things that the Maoists tend to do here is recruit in the universities from amongst the 'sociological middle class' (and many of these people will go on to become proletarians here, especially teachers, one of the most militant sectors in this country), and send them off to the people's war in the mountains. I would imagine that similar things happen in India, and that this is the sector that the Maoist leadership comes from.

If one holds that the working class must become a class for itself though, this is an absolutely counter productive attitude. You take out of the working class people who are committed socialists, and could play an important role in future class struggles. I can't think of a tactic better designed to weaken the development of class consciousness. Instead of being in their workplaces arguing with their fellow workers and putting forward socialist ideas, these people end up in a little camp in the mountains shooting the odd policeman or soldier, and believe me the state has a lot to spare, before getting killed or arrested and imprisoned.

The Maoists are committed young men and women seeking to fight against oppression and for a better, communist world,

Yes, I tend to believe that probably the vast majority are, and if they are not they more than likely started out that way. I am probably a bit more cynical about the leadership than you though.

and if they see the most suitable arena for their work as amongst tribals, or dalits, or slumdwellers, or peasants, I don't see the need to criticise them for trying to challenge the ruling class in other ways than just workplace industrial organising

I think that you have to be critical. Last night I was sitting in our section meeting discussing the conclusions we need to draw from a recent strike. Leo, who post on here, has been very involved in this particular strike, and thought that some of the things that I was saying were 'too critical' of the workers, and reacted quite defensively about it. What is the point though of us trying to draw the lessons from a strike if we just shut up and say nice things. Understanding how struggles develop and the balance of class forces is a crucial part to developing our ability to intervene better in the future. What is the point of reading the history of the workers' movement if we draw no lessons at all from it, and just say to people just do what you want. For us it is necessary to say that we don't see what these people are doing has anything to offer the working class.

Also I don't think that you can go into the slums and 'run' these people's struggles for them. It seems a bit like the sort of things like those Trotskyist groups in the US who insisted every member become a meat-packer or miner.

A revolution needs to encompass *all* struggles, and involve all oppressed classes and groups.

Ultimately yes, but people have to struggle for themselves, and communists have to focus their meagre resources where they can be most effective.

You, on the other hand, seem to take the attitude that since the proletariat, as the productive class, is the class with decisive power, even in a country like India which is overwhelmingly populated by poor peasants the communists should steer clear of the countryside and instead focus their efforts on the urban proletariat.

As I said earlier the peasant question is crucial. I feel there are maybe too many issues on this thread to do it justice though. Maybe it needs another thread.

And that they cannot even strike a balance which I think it is obvious the Maoists are striking, between underground urban work amongst the workers and revolutionary armed struggle in the countryside.

I don't think that there is much underground urban work amongst workers at all, and even when these sort of groups talk about it they don't have a clue. There was an interesting example on this thread:

THE MILITIA OF MLCP [this group is known as the MLKP as it said in the thread title. This is an English version] BLOCKED THE TRAFFIC FOR TEKEL WORKERS

While the resistance of the TEKEL workers in Ankara continues, the militia of party MLCP blocked the traffic in Gazi quarter in Sultangazi, Istanbul, and saluted the resistance. On the evening of April 1, militia activists gathered in front of the Former Police Station in Gazi and blocked the traffic on the street 75th Year with arms, weapons and Molotov cocktails. The militia shouted slogans such as "TEKEL workers are not alone" and "Workers, to the party, to the MLCP" and called on the people of the quarter to support the resistance. After the action the activists withdrew, the quarter was under siege by the police.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mlcp-mlkp-militia-t132669/index.html?p=1714436#post1714436

These sort of groups, and more particularly the groups descended from Dev-Yol, have massive strength in these areas of Istanbul, which are predominately working class Kurdish areas. They have reasonably large support amongst working class youth in these areas, and some workers. They don't in anyway relate to the struggle of workers as workers though. Their focus is on support for their armed groups. They often go and throw things at the police station, and this time they shouted a few slogans about TEKEL. They don't relate to the working class as a class though.

What do you expect the Maoists to do? Really? To show up on the picket line openly identifying themselves as CPI (Maoist) cadre and start selling their paper? Or perhaps they should get jobs in factories, openly declare to the world who they are and try to form a strike committee? You're asking them to commit suicide to prove to skeptics like you that there is support for the Maoists among the working class.

I don't expect them to do any of that because I think as I said above that their focus isn't on the working class struggle.

I think that this line says a lot:

Or perhaps they should get jobs in factories, openly declare to the world who they are and try to form a strike committee?

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that sending people into factories is the answer. The comment about the strike committee speaks volumes though. Political militants can not set up strike committees. Only the working class itself can do that. To me it comes across as the same old voluntarism.

I am not sure if I managed to adopt the right tone, but I tried to, and I hope I have given you some things to think about.

Devrim

Red Commissar

7th April 2010, 22:25

black magick hustla

7th April 2010, 23:25

This is a weak argument from a weak mind. All sorts of people get tortured in military prisons...it doesn't make them revolutionaries, it doesn't make their politics any more correct, it doesn't determine whether or not they are pacifists. Most immediately, however, it doesn't make the people they disagree with "internet douches". That would be a weak argument, formulated in a weak mind.

Of course not you dolt. My point wasnt on his correctness of line, but on the silly macho posturing of internet cowboys, about supposed "pacifism" or armchair revolutionism. It sounds ridiculous, especially coming from some dopey internet kid.

Lyev

8th April 2010, 00:27

The whole thing in Germany will depend on whether it is possible to back the Proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants war. In which case the affair should go swimmingly.

Perhaps you could explain why you think Marx was talking nonsense.
I could be wrong here, but I don't think the original point of contention was over a peasant-proletariat alliance. This is an idea that manifests under all sorts of names with lots of communist, revolutionary thinkers.

Marx had his permanent revolution, Trotsky changed and adapted that, Lenin believed in a rural-urban alliance and Mao was very big -- as we all know -- on the peasantry. He even changed "workers of the world, unite" to "oppressed people of....", to make room for them.

I think the contention is over whether this attack has actually achieved anything significant or tangible for the revolutionary leftist movement in India. Has killing 70-odd government soldiers in a highly co-ordinated ambush brought the proletariat and peasantry any closer to emancipation? What do you think?

manic expression

8th April 2010, 00:39

Well, with the blunder the paramilitaries made here, I wonder if the Indian government will use this a as a pretext to open full operations against the Naxalites. I read on the BBC that the Indian Army has no plans to open up operations but I wonder what the state itself is thinking.
That's an interesting aspect to all this. I think one of the reasons the Indian state doesn't want to deploy the Army is that it would be an obvious admission that they've lost control. With India trying to portray itself as the rising market, resorting to full-out Army operations well within their borders (as opposed to the situation in Kashmir, for example) would be a big blow to that image. Also, is the Indian Army even geared towards engaging the Maoists effectively? Heavy-handed strategies against guerrillas is a very treacherous double-edged sword, and that has to be a very big, looming question mark for the Indian capitalists. Whatever the case, though, calling on the Indian Army is a Rubicon: once it's crossed, there's no turning back, and the bourgeoisie knows it.

I think the contention is over whether this attack has actually achieved anything significant or tangible for the revolutionary leftist movement in India. Has killing 70-odd government soldiers in a highly co-ordinated ambush brought the proletariat and peasantry any closer to emancipation? What do you think?
Understood. For me, this ambush signifies not only an impressive tactical victory over capitalist forces (and from everything I've seen, the anti-Naxalite paramilitaries are nothing but right-wing terrorists at best, so defeating them is positive in and of itself), but also the ascendancy of a communist insurgency. Maybe I'm wrong, but to carry out an ambush on this scale must require considerable support from the surrounding countryside, at least a reasonable presence in urban centers and a high level of military capability. All those things are central components of successful revolutionary forces, from the Bolsheviks to China to Cuba. The Naxalites are gaining strength, and we're beginning to see signs of panic within the Indian bourgeoisie. Any one of those factors would contribute to the cause of the workers (a successful ambush against right-wing death squads, a growing and popular revolutionary guerrilla force, a panicking capitalist class), but all of them together makes it all the more inspiring, at least in my eyes.

My point wasnt on his correctness of line
Of course not; that would require a measure of constructive thought.

Saorsa

8th April 2010, 00:48

Why did the Naxalites choose to attack a soldier's patrol that didn't directly threaten them -- instead of spending time and effort with the oppressed working-class? All I'm questioning is that it seems like a strange choice of tactics and strategy to attack these soldiers.

The patrol does threaten them. For one thing, every breath a soldier or policeman of the ruling class takes is a continuation of the threat they pose to the masses. These kind of attacks are always justified. But further than that, the Indian state is currently in the middle of a massive military campaign called Operation Green Hunt. Green Hunt's stated goal is to wipe out the Maoists, and these soldiers were operating as part of the operation. Let's not waste sympathy on them, and instead feel some sympathy for the women these bastards raped, the tribals they murdered and the villages they torched.

Devrim, I'll respond to your post later.

zimmerwald1915

8th April 2010, 00:52

He even changed "workers of the world, unite" to "oppressed people of....", to make room for them.
No he didn't. "Workers of the world and oppressed peoples, unite!" was raised as a slogan by the Second Comintern Congress.

*back to lurking*

black magick hustla

8th April 2010, 01:16

Of course not; that would require a measure of constructive thought.
lol

man you are a maverick!

Lyev

8th April 2010, 01:58

No he didn't. "Workers of the world and oppressed peoples, unite!" was raised as a slogan by the Second Comintern Congress.

*back to lurking*
Bloody pedant :p the point is; Mao loved peasants, you can't deny that, despite me misplacing the source of that "oppressed people..." thing.

pranabjyoti

8th April 2010, 02:16

Rather than referring to the Urban Perspectives document, which says what the Naxalites will do, we need to ask: what have the Maoists done to build a strong, tangible proletarian base in urban areas? What they say they will do, and what they actually do are two seperate things for me.
Kindly read my posts and you can understand how difficult it is to organize workers on the basis of revolutionary struggle in India. If the Maoists isn't organizing workers, then which party is doing so? If none, then that is a good indication of the situation and I hope you can understand that.

Why did the Naxalites choose to attack a soldier's patrol that didn't directly threaten them -- instead of spending time and effort with the oppressed working-class? All I'm questioning is that it seems like a strange choice of tactics and strategy to attack these soldiers. The amount of dead on each side isn't indicative of the victors of a war. Furthermore, I can't see at the moment, how this ambush is indicative of the success of the revolutionary leftist movement in India, on the whole.
Have you any idea that the "patrol of soldiers" is a part of operation green hunt, state offensive against the Maoists. As per the reports, they were on hunt for Maoist leader Benugopal and you are saying that the patrol "didn't directly threaten them"? I think you have no idea about how to conduct a guerrilla war, if you have then you can understand that without support from the local mass, it's just impossible to organize such an ambush attack. I am requesting you to come to India and show us how to organize workers on the basis of revolutionary ideology without any kind of support from an ongoing armed struggle.

Saorsa

8th April 2010, 02:29

Expropriate, I think Mao's analysis of how the revolutionary party should relate to the peasantry is a bit more nuanced than 'he loved them'.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm

During my recent visit to Hunan [1] I made a first-hand investigation of conditions in the five counties of Hsiangtan, Hsianghsiang, Hengshan, Liling and Changsha. In the thirty-two days from January 4 to February 5, I called together fact-finding conferences in villages and county towns, which were attended by experienced peasants and by comrades working in the peasant movement, and I listened attentively to their reports and collected a great deal of material. Many of the hows and whys of the peasant movement were the exact opposite of what the gentry in Hankow and Changsha are saying. I saw and heard of many strange things of which I had hitherto been unaware. I believe the same is true of many other places, too. All talk directed against the peasant movement must be speedily set right. All the wrong measures taken by the revolutionary authorities concerning the peasant movement must be speedily changed. Only thus can the future of the revolution be benefited. For the present upsurge of the peasant movement is a colossal event. In a very short time, in China's central, southern and northern provinces, several hundred million peasants will rise like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back. They will smash all the trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation. They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants and evil gentry into their graves. Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide. There are three alternatives. To march at their head and lead them? To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticizing? Or to stand in their way and oppose them? Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make the choice quickly.

Lyev

8th April 2010, 20:27

I didn't really know about operation green hunt until I read up on it about half an hour, sorry if I came across as a bit blinkered or dogmatic. Here's something from wikipedia;

...The attacks were seen as a setback to efforts to cleanse the eastern parts of the Naxals in order to open up the regions that are rich in iron ore, coal, bauxite and manganese to investment. NMDC Ltd. operates its biggest iron-ore mine, while Essar Steel Ltd. plan a $1.5 billion steel plant in the district. The New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management...
I also found this while browsing for info on the Naxalites. It's quite biased and dismissive of the Maoists' struggle in places, but there is some cold, hard objectivity buried in there--

India's Naxalites

A spectre haunting India
Maoist rebels are fighting a brutal low-level war with the Indian state

Aug 17th 2006 | DANTEWADA DISTRICT, CHHATTISGARH | From The Economist print edition

GANESH UEIKE, secretary of the West Bastar Divisional Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), seems a gentle, rather academic, man, who does not suit his green combat fatigues or clenched-fist “red salute”. He shuffles dog-eared bits of paper from a shabby file in his knapsack and writes down the questions he is asked. He answers them in slogans that he gives every appearance of believing. He wants to “liberate India from the clutches of feudalism and imperialism”.

APhttp://media.economist.com/images/20060819/3306AS4.jpgA band of merry Naxalites

The rare interview took place last month, in a thatched shelter in a clearing in the Bastar forest in southern Chhattisgarh. The spot was some seven hours' walk from the nearest road, and there had been a day-and-a-half's wait for such a “big leader” to emerge from a hideout even deeper in the jungle. His party, he said, was facing renewed suppression, because “the resources of finance capitalism are facing sluggishness in their development, and are looking for new routes,” such as the mineral riches of this forest.

Mr Ueike did not mention that, just a few hours beforehand, at the edge of the forest, in a place called Errabore, his comrades had fought back. Several hundred had mounted a co-ordinated attack on a police station, a paramilitary base and a relief camp for displaced people. They killed more than 30 of the camp's residents, mostly by hacking them to death with axes. The scholarly Mr Ueike did boast that his army relied on “low-tech weapons”.

http://media.economist.com/images/20060819/CAS982.gif

This was the latest battle in a year-long civil war in Dantewada district, in which more than 350 people have been killed, and nearly 50,000 moved into camps such as the one at Errabore. It is a remote, sparsely populated, under-developed region bordering three neighbouring states, and nine hours' drive from Chhattisgarh's capital, Raipur (see map). It is here that India's widespread Maoist rebellion is most intense.

On August 15th, in his National Day speech in Delhi, India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, linked Naxalism with terrorism as the two big threats to India's internal security. The terrorism is all too familiar. India's cities have endured repeated atrocities—culminating in July's bomb attacks in Mumbai, which killed nearly 200 people. But many are surprised that Mr Singh accords Naxalism such a high priority. A primitive peasant rebellion based on an outmoded ideology is out of keeping with the modern India of soaring growth, Bollywood dreams and call-centres. Moreover, India has fought many better-known wars. A violent insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Its north-eastern states are wracked by dozens of secessionist movements.

But Mr Singh may be right about the Maoists. Known as “Naxalites”, after the district of Naxalbari in West Bengal where they staged an uprising in 1967, they are these days almost a nationwide force. Greeted by China's People's Daily at the height of the Cultural Revolution as “a peal of spring thunder”, they were almost wiped out in the 1970s, as the Indian government repressed them, and Maoism went out of fashion, even in its homeland.

In India they splintered into various armed factions, of which the biggest were the People's War Group and the Maoist Communist Centre. These merged and formed the CPI (Maoist) party in September 2004. P.V. Ramana, of the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi, estimates the Naxalites now have 9,000-10,000 armed fighters, with access to about 6,500 firearms. There are perhaps a further 40,000 full-time cadres.
In nearly 1,600 violent incidents involving Naxalites last year, 669 people died. There have been spectacular attacks across a big area: a train hold-up last month involving 250 armed fighters, a jailbreak freeing 350 prisoners, a near-miss assassination attempt in 2004 against a leading politician. “Naxalism” now affects some 170 of India's 602 districts—a “red corridor” down a swathe of central India from the border with Nepal in the north to Karnataka in the south and covering more than a quarter of India's land mass.

This statistic overstates Naxalite power, since in most places they are an underground, hit-and-run force. But in the Bastar forest they are well-entrenched, controlling a large chunk of territory and staging operations across state borders into Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. In the tiny, dirt-poor villages scattered through the forest, the Indian state is almost invisible.

In one there is a hand-pump installed by the local government, but the well is dry. There are no roads, waterpipes, electricity or telephone lines. In another village a teacher does come, but, in the absence of a school, holds classes outdoors. Policemen, health workers and officials are never seen. The vacuum is filled by Naxalite committees, running village affairs and providing logistic support to the fighters camping in the forest. For the past year, those fighters—mostly local tribal people—have been battling not just the police and the six paramilitary battalions deployed in the district, but their own neighbours.

Not a dinner party
The single spark that lit this prairie fire was the formation a year ago of Salwa Judum, an anti-Maoist movement, whose name in Gondi, the language spoken by local tribes, means something like “peace hunt”. Its origins are disputed. K.R. Pisda, the district collector, or senior official, in Dantewada, dates it to a meeting in June 2005 of local villagers fed up with Naxalite intimidation and extortion. Others say that the Maoists were enforcing a boycott of trade in one of the main local forest products: tendu patta, the leaves used to wrap bidis (hand-rolled cigarettes).

Similar boycotts in the past had succeeded in forcing up prices and had earned the Naxalites some kudos. This one, the story goes, backfired. If it ever was a spontaneous movement, Salwa Judum soon became an arm of government policy—and a paramilitary force. Some 5,000 of its members have been inducted as “special police officers” (SPOs) and given some training and arms.

As the local government tells it, thousands of people started turning up by the roadside, fleeing Naxalite reprisals. There was no choice but to house them in relief camps, of which there are now 17. This is a dirty little war in which truth was long ago a casualty. Salwa Judum itself is also responsible for displacing people—a “scorched village” policy intended to starve the Maoists of local support. This recognises that the Naxalites' real strength lies not in their guerrillas in the jungle, with their peaked caps and “country-made” rifles, but in their civilian networks in the villages themselves.

In the largest camp, at Dornapal, some 17,000 people are housed in huts of mud and corrugated iron. Health workers say that many of the children are malnourished. One man, Wenjam, says he took refuge here after Naxalites in his local village beat him, and threatened him with worse, because he had a government contract to fence the pond. He had a pukka house, he said, and a herd of cattle. But, after five months in the camp, he had not been back to the village.

Armed police do sometimes escort groups home for a visit. Mr Ueike says there are no “ordinary people” in the camps, only “SPO people and their families”, whom he dismisses as “village feudal families and some lumpen elements”.

Yet some of those displaced are openly critical of Salwa Judum, which they say forced them to leave their villages. They are caught between two vicious enemies. In some villages, residents fled into the forest rather than follow the drive to the roadside. The camps are very controversial. Even K.P.S. Gill, a retired policeman known as a “supercop” for his vigorous role in putting down various insurgencies, and now an adviser to the Chhattisgarh government on dealing with the Maoists, says it would have been better to protect people in their villages.

When the Chhattisgarh government's home minister, Ramvichar Netam, visited Errabore the day after the massacre, he was surrounded by angry survivors. They pelted his helicopter with stones. Some of the bereaved even refused the money he was handing out as compensation. The Salwa Judum campaign, however, has important backers. Raman Singh, Chhattisgarh's chief minister, calls it “a success story”, a “non-violent movement against exploitation”.

The same tune is sung by the leader of the opposition in the state, Mahendra Karma of the Congress party, who is, in effect, Salwa Judum's leading light. A native of Dantewada itself, Mr Karma, like Mr Singh, sits under a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi and stresses the movement's “peaceful” origins. But he also links it to the global fight against terrorism and asks: “Are we not supposed to protect ourselves in our homeland?” Even the central government seemed at one time to endorse the campaign. In a statement in March the home ministry promised to “promote local resistance groups” against Naxalites.

Now, however, V.K. Duggal, the home ministry's top civil servant, who, like state officials, calls Salwa Judum “spontaneous”, says that at a meeting last week the central government advised the Chhattisgarh government not to extend the movement to other areas. Delhi is offering assistance: an extra paramilitary battalion; armoured vehicles; minesweeping equipment; and imaging technology to help locate remote Naxalite camps. It draws the line at helicopters for offensive operations. Its emphasis is on persuading the Maoists to join mainstream politics. In his speech this week, the prime minister said he wanted Naxalites to understand that “real power flows from the ballot box”.

Mr Karma and local officials in Dantewada make much of the Maoists' inhumanity. He says they load the corpses of their victims with mines, so those retrieving the bodies are also killed. Om Prakash Pal, the police superintendent at Dornapal, displays a gruesome photo album of mutilated bodies. Even Mr Gill, who has seen more brutality than most, thinks the Maoists stand out in this respect: “Their ideology is that the manner of killing should frighten more than the killing itself.”

Salwa Judum, too, is accused of intimidation, extortion, rape and murder. Its thugs have been manning roadblocks, supposedly to hunt for Maoists, but also to demand money. Some SPOs—like some Naxalites—may be local hoodlums, who have signed up for the money on offer, and the shiny new bicycles and motorbikes still wrapped in plastic at the Dornapal police station. Some families refusing to join Salwa Judum on its “combing” operations—rampages of arson, thuggery and pillage—have been “fined” or beaten. A report on Salwa Judum produced in April by a number of civil-liberties groups concluded that its formation had “escalated violence on all sides...Salwa Judum and the paramilitary operate with complete impunity. The rule of law has completely broken down.”

The barrel of a gun
For local officials in Dantewada, and the state government in Raipur, the Naxalites are just bandits: extortionists who hold sway through terror alone. Their ideology, they say, long ago imploded in a welter of violence. There is little doubt that they do use terror and extortion. Himanshu Kumar, who runs aid projects in the district, says he used to respect the Naxalites as working “for the betterment of the masses”. But he now found “people supporting them out of fear of their guns, or to gain power to loot others.”
Most of their young recruits—illiterate tribal people—have never read Mao. But not all support is coerced or opportunistic. And those who have studied the Naxalites credit them with far greater organisation, discipline and ideological fervour than any criminal gang. Ajai Sahni, for example, of the Institute of Conflict Management, a Delhi think-tank, points to the detailed socio-economic surveys they conduct before starting operations in a target area, helping to identify grievances they can exploit.

He also says that the Naxalites have been among the most principled of terrorist groups in selecting their targets. Their attacks are not random; though, because they so often use crude landmines, they may kill the wrong people. Their leaders are thinking far into the future, taking a 20- to 25-year view of their struggle. “Liberated” areas, such as their part of Dantewada, would be expanded until they pose a threat even to India's cities.

Nepal's Maoists, with whom the Indian party has “fraternal” links, are a model of how such a strategy can work. Having managed to exclude the state from virtually all the countryside, and waged war for a decade, the Maoists in Nepal are now negotiating, from a position of some strength, their share in government—a decision their Indian comrades quietly deplore, despite a pretence of solidarity.

Early Naxalite leaders like Mr Ueike, who has spent nearly 30 years in the movement, were students and middle-class intellectuals. But the tribal peoples among whom they find most of their new recruits are among India's poorest: “the most exploited, the bottom rung”, according to Ajit Jogi, a tribal leader and former chief minister of Chhattisgarh. Typically, they live in forests and have no rights to their land. A law to remedy this is under consideration, but resisted by conservationists. According to the 2001 census, about three-quarters of Dantewada's 1,220 villages are almost wholly tribal; 1,161 have no medical facilities; 214 have no primary school; the literacy rate is 29% for men and 14% for women.

Most of the inhabitants are subsistence farmers eking a meagre cash income from selling forest products, such as tendu patta. Markets in the forest have been closed, to throttle the Maoists' supply chain. For many inside the forest, a visit to the market is now a long hike, camping overnight on the way. A big iron mine, Bailadilla, on the edge of the forest, employs few local people and in the rainy season turns a river bright orange and undrinkable. A railway has been built to take the ore to the sea.
The government blames the Maoists for blocking development, such as road-building. But the Maoists tell people that roads are intended simply to help the state plunder the forests and take wealth out, not bring it in. Many believe them. The Maoists profit from what Mr Sahni calls “asymmetric expectations”: people expect the state to provide for them, and it is failing; any good coming from the Maoists—social work, land redistribution, a price rise for local produce—brings disproportionate gratitude.

Contradictions among the people
To bring development to these neglected reaches, the government needs to assert control. Salwa Judum is the wrong way to go about it. A larger, better-trained police force would help. In India, on average, there are 55 policemen for every 100 square kilometres; in Chhattisgarh just 17. In districts such as Dantewada, policing is an unattractive, life-threatening career. Mr Pal, the Dornapal policeman, is a young and competent-seeming officer from the state of Uttar Pradesh. But he has been criticised in the press for lacking experience.

Some 2,000 policemen have attended a Counter-Terrorism and Jungle Warfare Training School, which opened a year ago at Kanker, on the road from Raipur. The director, B.K. Ponwar, a retired army brigadier, wants to teach policemen “to fight a guerrilla like a guerrilla”. They learn to slither down ropes, as from a helicopter, practise peppering a range with live bullets, run fierce obstacle courses and study survival skills, such as “jungle cooking” (“First, catch your cobra...”).

APhttp://media.economist.com/images/20060819/3306AS3.jpgA policeman's unhappy lot

Eradicating Naxalism, however, is more than a local policing problem. One difficulty has been that, under India's constitution, security is a matter for state governments rather than the centre. So national policy for dealing with the Naxalites has been inconsistent. In 2004, the government of Andhra Pradesh held abortive peace talks with local Naxalites, while other states continued to fight them.

Mr Ueike talks boldly of expanding Naxalite influence into new areas: Kashmir, the north-east, and India's cities. The spread of Naxalism is causing justifiable alarm. Just as Mao Zedong mounted the Gate of Heavenly Peace in Beijing in 1949 to tell the Chinese people they had stood up, Mr Ueike dreams of seeing the red flag fly over the Red Fort in Delhi in his lifetime.

It will not happen. For all their geographical reach, the Maoists' power base remains on the margins of Indian society. They are far from sparking a general insurrection. But, in places such as Dantewada, almost a hole in the map of the Indian polity, it is easy to see how a crude, violent ideology, promising land and liberation, might take root. Mr Singh had a point when in April he said the Naxalites posed “the single biggest internal-security challenge ever faced by our country”.

Other terrorists attack the Indian state at its strong points—its secularism, its inclusiveness, its democracy. Naxalism attacks where it is weakest: in delivering basic government services to those who need them most. The Naxalites do not threaten the government in Delhi, but they do have the power to deter investment and development in some of India's poorest regions, which also happen to be among the richest in some vital resources—notably iron and coal. So their movement itself has the effect of sharpening inequity, which many see as the biggest danger facing India in the next few years, and which is the Naxalites' recruiting sergeant.

Brigadier Ponwar, who joined the Indian army as it went to war in Bangladesh in 1971, says he spent the rest of his career fighting terrorists at home. After fighting low-intensity wars on its periphery for a generation, India risks having to endure another, in its very core, for the next.Movements like these are never 2D, or as simple as they seem. A struggle like this doesn't happen in vacuum, totally isolated from everything social, economic, cultural and political that takes place. This is part of a much bigger picture. I think it's silly to absolutely dismiss such movements, no matter what sect you adhere to.

pranabjyoti

9th April 2010, 02:41

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gautam-navlakha-days-t132733/index.html
Actually this article can show what are the basic reasons behind the support of the locals to the Maoists. What the worthless state was unable to do for epochs, Maoists has showed that they can do that in just days. They had improved the living standards of the tribal people by collectivization method, which increased the productivity of land quickly and effectively. Moreover, this has been done with traditional technology and bio fertilizers. In short, they increased the productivity in a much more environment friendly way than conventional method used. In that report, it has been clearly stated that 80% of work done by Maoists in their controlled area is of non-military nature. Still, some people are basing the "unpreparedness" of the para-military forces behind the defeats.

NaxalbariZindabad

9th April 2010, 03:54

It must be reminded that it's the government which is ultimately responsible for the deaths of these policemen. It is the State that is pushing for the murderous "Operation Green Hunt", sending battalions to hunt and kill suspected Maoist supporters, while ignoring calls for ceasefire and negotiations made by the CPI(Maoist).

Comrade Red Cat posted this article in another thread, where we see other recent calls by com. Azad for ceasefire and lifting of the ban on CPI(Maoist):

Maoists keen on mutual ceasefire with government
Siddharth Varadarajan

NEW DELHI: The Communist Party of India (Maoist) is not willing to unilaterally “abjure violence” as Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram wants them to but is prepared to accept a mutual ceasefire with the security forces across the country, Azad, spokesman for the banned group, has told The Hindu in an exclusive interview.

This newspaper was invited to interview Azad last month through written questions, since a face-to-face meeting was impossible. The answers were received a few days before Tuesday's deadly ambush of a CRPF company by the Maoists in Chhattisgarh.

Azad said it was clear that Mr. Chidambaram wanted the unilateral renunciation of violence by the Maoists and not a ceasefire with the government “like that with the NSCN.” Dismissing this demand as “absurd,” he said: “What the CPI(Maoist) wants is a cessation of hostilities by both sides simultaneously.” Such a mutual ceasefire would be “an expression of the willingness on the part of both sides engaged in war to create a conducive atmosphere for going to the next step of talks.”

The Maoist spokesman added that if his party was to engage in “peaceful legal work” as many were demanding, the ban on the CPI(Maoist) must be lifted. “Without lifting the ban … how can we organise legal struggles, meetings, etc, in our name? If we do so, will these not be dubbed illegal as they are led by a banned party?”

Though Azad was sceptical of the prospect of dialogue “given the attitude of the Central government,” he said talks would be possible only if the government released some party leaders from jail. “Or else, there would be none to talk to since the entire party is illegal. We cannot bring any of our leaders overground for the purpose of talks.”

Asked whether the Maoist support for talks was a ploy to buy time or part of a wider re-evaluation of strategy in favour of overground politics, Azad said their aim was different. “The proposal of talks is meant… to give some respite for the people at large who are living under constant state terror and immense suffering” caused by the government's counter-insurgency operations.

Excerpts from the interview will be published in The Hindu in two parts next week while the full transcript will be available on our website. (source (http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/08/stories/2010040857590100.htm))

comrade_cyanide444

9th April 2010, 05:37

red cat

9th April 2010, 05:46

The Vegan Marxist

9th April 2010, 07:41

red cat

9th April 2010, 08:44

Does this communist live in India? And even if so, I'd rather trust someone like Arundhati Roy who actually spent quite a while with the Naxalites, rather than someone who's looked at it through an Indian-Marxist perspective.

There is more to it; since this person is being referred to as a communist/Stalinist/Marxist, he will almost inevitably be a hardcore supporter of the CPI(M). Obviously they don't like it when the masses break down the shackles of their fascist rule.

pranabjyoti

9th April 2010, 14:54

The Vegan Marxist

10th April 2010, 02:27

There is more to it; since this person is being referred to as a communist/Stalinist/Marxist, he will almost inevitably be a hardcore supporter of the CPI(M). Obviously they don't like it when the masses break down the shackles of their fascist rule.

Oh I know he's probably a supporter in it. That's why I said I'd rather listen to Roy than someone with an Indian-Marxist perspective - meaning someone who supports the views of the Indian-Marxists. Sorry if I didn't explain better.

Ztrain

10th April 2010, 02:35

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 02:43

This is not at all good news...First of all violent terrorism of this nature is entirely counter revolutionary,,,we can learn THAT lesson from the SLA....second,Maoism is an authoritarian ideology that obtains equality through enslaving everyone under an authoritarian system
Anarchy,Communism and Peace!:star::reda::marx:

The government waged this war, they're the aggressors and have been for a long time. Sure I feel sorry for the poor Indian soldier taking a bullet for Indian capitalism, but hey, that's war.

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 02:53

Oh I know he's probably a supporter in it. That's why I said I'd rather listen to Roy than someone with an Indian-Marxist perspective - meaning someone who supports the views of the Indian-Marxists. Sorry if I didn't explain better.

Exactly, the CPI(Marxist) has way too much of a stake in the Indian state as it is, so their positions on this conflict will always be compromised by their positions of power in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura. I know what you mean though, at least Arundhati Roy is independent of that entire establishment-left political apparatus (although her cousin Prannoy Roy's wife's sister is Brinda Karat, who is the wife of Prakash Karat who is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India - Marxist).

The CPI(Marxist) have denounced the CPI(Maoist) for a long time, my uncle was expelled from the CPI(Marxist) for sympathizing with the Maoists.

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 03:12

Being from India, here's what I think:

No one should call soldiers evil... They didn't do anything morally wrong, they simply served their nation...

I disagree with the tactics of the Maoist rebels. I also am less on the side of Mao. I think Maoism is comparable to Stalinism, and I despise Stalinism.

These rebels should not keep doing attacks. The goal of the guerrillas are not to kill as many soldiers as possible; it is to fight for what is right. Obviously, these guys need some sort of PR. If they keep doing these forms of attacks, they will become criminals, even in the Leftist's eyes. They have to create some sort of party and use peaceful diplomacy to negotiate with and rally for the Indian people.

With that aside, I agree that Capitalism is changing India rapidly. When I was in West Bengal, I saw high rising corporate offices and billboards across the street from street shacks and brothels.

I am not clear of how the rebels killed so many personnel; whether it was small arms fire or IEDs. The rebels need to organize and train in a manner similar to Hezbollah. They need to adjust their principles and only attack forces that attack them for a while. Perhaps improving relations with fellow Leftists wouldn't hurt.

I get annoyed when I hear some leftists claim that it's wrong to support the Maoists because they're ideology is anti-revisionist and authoritarian. These same leftists will then support Hamas for being anti-imperialist when Hamas' ideology is based around religion - which is far more reactionary than the positions of the Naxalites.

As for public relations, I went to India over the Christmas break and the Naxalites were quite popular, especially amongst university students. Adivasis (tribal Indians) have been treated horribly for a long time and now they're fighting back, reasonable Indians would understand that.

The Naxalites have no way near the amount of money and funding that Hezbollah does. They're the poorest people in India and they use guns that are older than the state they're fighting.

pranabjyoti

10th April 2010, 03:59

This is not at all good news...First of all violent terrorism of this nature is entirely counter revolutionary,,,we can learn THAT lesson from the SLA....second,Maoism is an authoritarian ideology that obtains equality through enslaving everyone under an authoritarian system
Anarchy,Communism and Peace!:star::reda::marx:
Perhaps you want to go in the Gandhian, Non-violent way to socialism.:crying::D

The Vegan Marxist

10th April 2010, 04:02

I get annoyed when I hear some leftists claim that it's wrong to support the Maoists because they're ideology is anti-revisionist and authoritarian. These same leftists will then support Hamas for being anti-imperialist when Hamas' ideology is based around religion - which is far more reactionary than the positions of the Naxalites.

As for public relations, I went to India over the Christmas break and the Naxalites were quite popular, especially amongst university students. Adivasis (tribal Indians) have been treated horribly for a long time and now they're fighting back, reasonable Indians would understand that.

The Naxalites have no way near the amount of money and funding that Hezbollah does. They're the poorest people in India and they use guns that are older than the state they're fighting.

I support the Naxalites & the Hamas. Though, my support to the Hamas is very limited to certain extents. Mainly due to their conjoining forces with the PFLP.

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 04:26

Perhaps you want to go in the Gandhian, Non-violent way to socialism.:crying::D

Didn't Gandhi believe in class-collaboration?

Saorsa

10th April 2010, 05:47

Didn't Gandhi believe in class-collaboration?

Ghandi was a dick

Spirit of Spartacus

10th April 2010, 07:54

Naxalbari Lal Salaam!
Marxwaad, Leninwaad, Maowaad zindabad!
Inquilab zindabad!

To all the Indian comrades on this website who support the armed struggle of the Maoists, I'd like to offer my congratulations on the completion of this successful operation against state forces.

We in Pakistan are greatly inspired by your struggle, and are now on the road towards uniting left parties and advancing our own political struggle. If and when we face the same repression as you, we too will follow in your footsteps.

Naxalbari Lal salaam!

Spirit of Spartacus

10th April 2010, 07:58

pranabjyoti

10th April 2010, 08:21

http://www.icawpi.org/en/india-news/398-arrest-of-prominent-human-rights-activist-kirity-roy-condemned-un-human-rights-chief-and-nhrc-urged-to-intervene
This is an example of how "DEMOCRATIC" Indian state is treating people, who are opposing it. Surprisingly, none ever called the state of India a "Stalinist" state.:D

black magick hustla

10th April 2010, 10:06

And to all the peaceful, non-violent European and North American comrades with oh-so-pure souls, I suggest that they spend just ONE week in the peripheral, marginalized regions of South Asia, organizing the rural poor.

If you can survive the mosquitoes, you'll realize that state repression is pretty bad too.

Some comrades here are just not aware of how the neo-colonial state in South Asian countries reacts to any resistance. They're not going to file a lawsuit against you or take out a counter-protest against your cadres. Nope, its a little worse than that.

i think you are assuming to much about the people who criticize those groups. There are some ICC members who have rotten in south asian jails for years and others who were ex guerrillas. Obviously this does not make their points correct or wrong, but it does reveal how warped is the image of some people posting in this forum about maoism's critics.

red cat

10th April 2010, 13:45

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

10th April 2010, 14:00

One more victory.
More to come!

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 18:34

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 18:38

And to all the peaceful, non-violent European and North American comrades with oh-so-pure souls, I suggest that they spend just ONE week in the peripheral, marginalized regions of South Asia, organizing the rural poor.

If you can survive the mosquitoes, you'll realize that state repression is pretty bad too.

Some comrades here are just not aware of how the neo-colonial state in South Asian countries reacts to any resistance. They're not going to file a lawsuit against you or take out a counter-protest against your cadres. Nope, its a little worse than that.

They'll shout you down in public, quietly murder you in private. That's India.

Spirit of Spartacus

10th April 2010, 18:42

i think you are assuming to much about the people who criticize those groups. There are some ICC members who have rotten in south asian jails for years and others who were ex guerrillas. Obviously this does not make their points correct or wrong, but it does reveal how warped is the image of some people posting in this forum about maoism's critics.

While I can only have respect and admiration for the ICC members who have been in South Asian jails, I must say that on this forum at least, I often wonder if the ICC comrades can move beyond Western Europe in 1848.

I do not believe that the Maoists alone have a complete solution for achieving socialism in India (or for that matter anywhere else in the world). I'm not envisaging the Indian Maoists marching into Delhi tomorrow.

But what I do believe is that in the areas where the Maoists of India are operating, relations between the state and its subjects are very different from anything that most of the First World comrades on this forum are familiar with. This different reality means that left-wing politics in these areas is a very messy affair. It requires discipline, it requires political and theoretical insight and even more importantly: when you are confronted with open thuggery, you have to learn to respond to it in the same currency.

I believe that of course the Maoists will have to work with a wide variety of groups throughout India if they are to move beyond their current areas of influence. They will have to engage with the huge lower-caste movements in India, the question of the Muslim minority, the urban working-class, etc. They will also have to find some way of engaging with the urban middle-class, which is much more affected and attracted by globalization and the "India Shining" thing.

But having pointed out all of those challenges, I have to admit that currently, the Maoists in India seem to be the only Left faction which has a clear vision of what the people of their area want and how it is to be achieved and defended.

I can hardly say the same for the CPI or the CPI-M, for instance.

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 18:55

While I can only have respect and admiration for the ICC members who have been in South Asian jails, I must say that on this forum at least, I often wonder if the ICC comrades can move beyond Western Europe in 1848.

I do not believe that the Maoists alone have a complete solution for achieving socialism in India (or for that matter anywhere else in the world). I'm not envisaging the Indian Maoists marching into Delhi tomorrow.

But what I do believe is that in the areas where the Maoists of India are operating, relations between the state and its subjects are very different from anything that most of the First World comrades on this forum are familiar with. This different reality means that left-wing politics in these areas is a very messy affair. It requires discipline, it requires political and theoretical insight and even more importantly: when you are confronted with open thuggery, you have to learn to respond to it in the same currency.

I believe that of course the Maoists will have to work with a wide variety of groups throughout India if they are to move beyond their current areas of influence. They will have to engage with the huge lower-caste movements in India, the question of the Muslim minority, the urban working-class, etc. They will also have to find some way of engaging with the urban middle-class, which is much more affected and attracted by globalization and the "India Shining" thing.

But having pointed out all of those challenges, I have to admit that currently, the Maoists in India seem to be the only Left faction which has a clear vision of what the people of their area want and how it is to be achieved and defended.

I can hardly say the same for the CPI or the CPI-M, for instance.

I'm from Kerala, the CPI(Marxist) are a joke, however it's either them or the Congress Party.

red cat

10th April 2010, 19:01

I believe that of course the Maoists will have to work with a wide variety of groups throughout India if they are to move beyond their current areas of influence. They will have to engage with the huge lower-caste movements in India, the question of the Muslim minority, the urban working-class, etc. They will also have to find some way of engaging with the urban middle-class, which is much more affected and attracted by globalization and the "India Shining" thing.

Maoists in India already have addressed these issues. The lower caste movement has been one of the main forces behind the Maoist success in both India and Nepal. But don't fall for any parliamentary group that claims even to be solely meant for addressing these issues; they don't practice what they preach and hence Maoists oppose them.

Spirit of Spartacus

10th April 2010, 21:19

I'm from Kerala, the CPI(Marxist) are a joke, however it's either them or the Congress Party.

Well comrade, when confronted with such a choice, of course I know which we'd all rather pick. There are some very good comrades in the CPI-M too, and the party has a history of struggle which cannot be forgotten or belittled.

As a party on the whole though, especially when its role in West Bengal is considered, the CPI-M seems very problematic. Their tacit acceptance of a defensive rather than revolutionary strategy, their compromises with neo-liberal growth models, their bureaucratism, their concessions to maintaining peace with the Indian state, all these suggest that they are not a dynamic and credible left-wing force, even if they are numerically quite strong. At the best, they seem to be a party which might improve some things within the status quo. Neither their outlook nor their practice as a party seems revolutionary. If the Indian revolution is to depend on a party whose sole political aim is to keep the BJP out of power, then...you know...we've got problems, no?

I may be very wrong here, I might be too critical of the CPI-M, I don't know. But the Naxals, more success to them! :P

red cat

10th April 2010, 21:25

There are some very good comrades in the CPI-M too, and the party has a history of struggle which cannot be forgotten or belittled.

I don't know about this history of "struggle". Please enlighten me. :)

EDIT: I think that both of you are right. If a party has only a few good comrades, that too only at the base level, and they are thoroughly neglected, and they participate in an armed revolt against the party ( like in Nandigram ), then the party itself does become a joke, doesn't it ?

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 23:24

Well comrade, when confronted with such a choice, of course I know which we'd all rather pick. There are some very good comrades in the CPI-M too, and the party has a history of struggle which cannot be forgotten or belittled.

As a party on the whole though, especially when its role in West Bengal is considered, the CPI-M seems very problematic. Their tacit acceptance of a defensive rather than revolutionary strategy, their compromises with neo-liberal growth models, their bureaucratism, their concessions to maintaining peace with the Indian state, all these suggest that they are not a dynamic and credible left-wing force, even if they are numerically quite strong. At the best, they seem to be a party which might improve some things within the status quo. Neither their outlook nor their practice as a party seems revolutionary. If the Indian revolution is to depend on a party whose sole political aim is to keep the BJP out of power, then...you know...we've got problems, no?

I may be very wrong here, I might be too critical of the CPI-M, I don't know. But the Naxals, more success to them! :P

True. I think in Kerala the CPI managed to redistribute wealth and land a lot better than in West Bengal, that's why they were practically kicked out of power undemocratically in 1959 by Nehru. The protest movement against their rule really introduced the concept of class struggle in Kerala's history, never before had the Hindu and Christian ruling classes joined forces to achieve a political goal - even the Catholic church joined in the anti-communist struggle because they represent the interests of wealthy Catholic landlords (I come from one of these landowning Catholic families).

So yes, the CPI(M) adopts these defensive policies because it's impossible to institute socialism within the parliamentary system of the capitalist state - the very purpose of which is to protect private property, not to abolish it! Ever since that hawkish decision by Nehru in 59 to basically throw out a popular government, the lesson has been clear, if you pursue radical policies, the centre will punish you by kicking you out of power (as in Kerala) or deny industrial licenses so they can weaken your democratically elected communist government (as in West Bengal).

Lyev

10th April 2010, 23:36

poor Indian soldier taking a bullet for Indian capitalism, but hey, that's war.How an earth can you simply dismiss the end of a human life like this, from behind the comfort of your keyboard? These men aren't freshly swatted flies. They're people, with families. I think I can safely say you have never killed anyone. You don't have any idea what killing someone is like. Life isn't so worthless, to just dismiss it like that. These soldiers were threatening the Maoists, and, yes, they do defend the state and capitalism, and they were on operation green hunt, but I believe every life that can spared should be. It should not be so dispensable.

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 23:47

red cat

10th April 2010, 23:50

True. I think in Kerala the CPI managed to redistribute wealth and land a lot better than in West Bengal, that's why they were practically kicked out of power undemocratically in 1959 by Nehru. The protest movement against their rule really introduced the concept of class struggle in Kerala's history, never before had the Hindu and Christian ruling classes joined forces to achieve a political goal - even the Catholic church joined in the anti-communist struggle because they represent the interests of wealthy Catholic landlords (I come from one of these landowning Catholic families).

So yes, the CPI(M) adopts these defensive policies because it's impossible to institute socialism within the parliamentary system of the capitalist state - the very purpose of which is to protect private property, not to abolish it! Ever since that hawkish decision by Nehru in 59 to basically throw out a popular government, the lesson has been clear, if you pursue radical policies, the centre will punish you by kicking you out of power (as in Kerala) or deny industrial licenses so they can weaken your democratically elected communist government (as in West Bengal).

One by one. How exactly did the CPI "redistribute" wealth and how was it class struggle and not reformism ?

Sir Comradical

10th April 2010, 23:59

One by one. How exactly did the CPI "redistribute" wealth and how was it class struggle and not reformism ?

Since when did reformism and class struggle become mutually exclusive? My understanding of the latter being that it's an antagonism to be observed in political life. In Kerala, workers and peasants finally got the vote and elected a government which instituted reforms, this government was then overthrown by the ruling classes which felt threatened by land and education reform. Lets not be so cynical as to relegate this event to a mere bourgeois faction fight, it really wasn't.

red cat

11th April 2010, 00:06

Since when did reformism and class struggle become mutually exclusive? My understanding of the latter being that it's an antagonism to be observed in political life. In Kerala, workers and peasants finally got the vote and elected a government which instituted reforms, this government was then overthrown by the ruling classes which felt threatened by land and education reform. Lets not be so cynical as to relegate this event to a mere bourgeois faction fight, it really wasn't.

You are confusing reformism with reforms. How did these activities help in actual class struggle ? I would rather attribute the gains to the lower level cadres. Remember, this same leadership clique was associated with calling off the Telengana struggle.

Sir Comradical

11th April 2010, 00:40

You are confusing reformism with reforms. How did these activities help in actual class struggle ? I would rather attribute the gains to the lower level cadres. Remember, this same leadership clique was associated with calling off the Telengana struggle.

Class struggle refers to is the antagonisms between classes, that's all. Technically speaking, the 18th century struggle of the modern bourgeoisie against the monarchy in the French revolution was in effect a class struggle.

Back to political events of Kerala in the late 50's, never before had workers and peasants of different castes and religions seen themselves grouped together against a ruling class of different castes and religions. Previous social groupings in Kerala were based around religion and caste and not explicitly around class. That's what I meant when I said that it had "introduced the concept of class struggle in Kerala's history".

What do you know about the Telangana "struggle"?

Spawn of Stalin

11th April 2010, 00:49

How an earth can you simply dismiss the end of a human life like this, from behind the comfort of your keyboard? These men aren't freshly swatted flies. They're people, with families. I think I can safely say you have never killed anyone. You don't have any idea what killing someone is like. Life isn't so worthless, to just dismiss it like that. These soldiers were threatening the Maoists, and, yes, they do defend the state and capitalism, and they were on operation green hunt, but I believe every life that can spared should be. It should not be so dispensable.
Sometimes when I'm just doing nothing I think, "hey, some Trots aren't so bad, some are really progressive people actually", think I read shit like this and that thought goes straight out the window. Like Sir Comradicle said, it's war, war sucks but in a class war the lives of individuals absolutely must not take priority over the wellbeing of the collective, if you cannot agree to this you are against class war. As sad as it may be for some people, the lives of Indian soldiers ARE dispensable, because they are agents of the capitalists who make OUR Indian comrades' lives a living hell. Yes, I say this from the comfort and safeness of my home, no, I have never killed anyone, I don't have any plans to do so either, but I think that that's what's important here, I live a fantastic life, I hope I never have to know what it is like to be oppressed in a country such as India, and yet I still understand how important victories like this one are. You somehow have the audacity to critcise Sir Comradicle for taking an entirely realistic line on the Maoist victory just because he has never killed anyone, and because he is living a comfortable life, and yet you too are doing the very same thing, telling us how these poor Indian soldiers had families, and how their lives should be valued regardless of the degree of reaction they represent and fight for, it must be real easy to do that "from behind the comfort of your keyboard", it must be real easy to do that when you have never had to fight for your life, it must be real easy to spout the shit that you do when you live in beautiful picturesque fucking Somerset. You wouldn't last five minutes out there where the real struggle is happening, and the Maoists wouldn't either if they had your attitude, luckily, they don't, hence, they are Maoists, not Trotskyites.

Andropov

11th April 2010, 02:22

There are some ICC members who have rotten in south asian jails for years and others who were ex guerrillas.
Who are they and which countries were they imprisoned in?

black magick hustla

11th April 2010, 07:18

Who are they and which countries were they imprisoned in?
lol

do you realize everybody in the icc operates under a nom de guerre and nobody gives their names in public? are you silly?

anyway devrim, a poster in here, was tortured in a syrian prision because he was accused of conspiring to overthrow the lebanese state. there was an indian militant who spent rotting in jail for 9 years. i think one of the phillipine comrades spent some years in jail too, but I am not sure about the last one (one of them was a political commissair for 20 years in a maoist phillipino guerrilla)

I dont think it is that hard to believe. Not all icc members are westerners, some of them operate in very repressive third world countries. and some of them came off from groups who engaged in armed action against the state.

My point, much more than trying to talk about the macho qualities of the communist left, is to try to convey the fact that not all of us are westerners, and that the accusations of eurocentrism are ignorant at best.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 07:22

Who are they and which countries were they imprisoned in?

I was vaguely amused when the Maoist muppet the other day was asking us to name names. But come on you are in the IRSP. Be serious. We don't name individuals. How would you reply if someone on here asked you to name IRSP members, yet alone INLA members.

Comrades who are militants of the ICC now were imprisoned in India. Many of them were formerly Maoists particularly is West Bengal. The people who founded the group that later became the ICC in the Philippines had been militants in Maoist organisations for over twenty years. We don't have any other sections in South Asia.

Devrim

Saorsa

11th April 2010, 07:34

I don't think he necessarily needed their real names. He would have been happy with an alias and perhaps some kind of media article... Andropov just wanted a bit more information.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 07:35

anyway devrim, a poster in here, was tortured in a syrian prision because he was accused of conspiring to overthrow the lebanese state.

Oh, I didn't include myself because I thought we were talking about South Asia.

Not all icc members are westerners, some of them operate in very repressive third world countries. and some of them came off from groups who engaged in armed action against the state.

My point, much more than trying to talk about the macho qualities of the communist left, is to try to convey the fact that not all of us are westerners, and that the accusations of eurocentrism are ignorant at best.

There is a point here. There is a constant accusation on here, which in my opinion is very typical of the internet that we are all 'privileged Westerners'. It is how people often react on the internet. They don't reply to arguments. Instead they just throw innuendo at people.

However, in this case it is nowhere near the truth. There are four main people who argue the positions of the ICC on this site:

Maldoror, sympathiser, Mexian with an Algerian father.
Leo, member, Kurd, and direct descendent of Prophet Mohammed*.
Niccolò Rossi, sympathiser, Australian.
Myself, member, Irish born, Irish and Lebanese national living in Turkey.

I don't think the working class in the West are privileged. Nor do I think that people's arguments are wrong just because they live in the US or England. I think it is ironic though that generally the people accusing us of being 'privileged Westerners' are more likely to be so than we are.

Devrim

*This has no particular political relevance. I only mention it because it embarrasses him.

red cat

11th April 2010, 08:06

Class struggle refers to is the antagonisms between classes, that's all. Technically speaking, the 18th century struggle of the modern bourgeoisie against the monarchy in the French revolution was in effect a class struggle.

But the job of a CP is to consciously lead and develop the class struggle of the proletariat and oppressed masses. The CPI never did that.

Back to political events of Kerala in the late 50's, never before had workers and peasants of different castes and religions seen themselves grouped together against a ruling class of different castes and religions. Previous social groupings in Kerala were based around religion and caste and not explicitly around class. That's what I meant when I said that it had "introduced the concept of class struggle in Kerala's history".

What do you know about the Telangana "struggle"?

I think we are derailing the thread here. If you start a thread about the communist movements of India, I will be happy to discuss these topics.

red cat

11th April 2010, 08:13

I was vaguely amused when the Maoist muppet the other day was asking us to name names. But come on you are in the IRSP. Be serious. We don't name individuals. How would you reply if someone on here asked you to name IRSP members, yet alone INLA members.

Comrades who are militants of the ICC now were imprisoned in India. Many of them were formerly Maoists particularly is West Bengal. The people who founded the group that later became the ICC in the Philippines had been militants in Maoist organisations for over twenty years. We don't have any other sections in South Asia.

Devrim

Nowadays as soon as I am cornering revisionist elements in Revleft, they are finding new nick-names for me. :lol:

No one in India has been imprisoned for being a member of the ICC at least. And your claim of having an ex-Maoist leader of nationwide popularity there is also a hoax.

Devrim

11th April 2010, 08:24

No one in India has been imprisoned for being a member of the ICC at least. And your claim of having an ex-Maoist leader of nationwide popularity there is also a hoax.

No, as far as I know. Nobody has, but then we never claimed they had.
Nor did we 'claim' that we had a militant who was a nationally known Maoist. I just mentioned it. You may think I was lying, but belivie me, it is not something that I am in anyway 'proud' of.

Devrim

red cat

11th April 2010, 09:02

No, as far as I know. Nobody has, but then we never claimed they had.

So, is it like this, that after "rotting in jail" for several years, people come out and join the ICC ? That sounds believable. Yes, many former revolutionaries see light in prison and join revisionist organizations when they come out.

Nor did we 'claim' that we had a militant who was a nationally known Maoist. I just mentioned it. You may think I was lying, but belivie me, it is not something that I am in anyway 'proud' of.

DevrimI don't think that you are lying, I know that you are.

Of course you won't be proud of it. Even if such a person existed, his revolutionary past would probably be enough to make him an outcast in the ICC.

black magick hustla

11th April 2010, 09:07

know that you are.

yes and you are a 75 year old conservative grandmother who lives in a villa

Devrim

11th April 2010, 09:53

The CPI(Marxist) have denounced the CPI(Maoist) for a long time, my uncle was expelled from the CPI(Marxist) for sympathizing with the Maoists.

That is pretty tolerant by their standards. I spoke to one guy, whose father had been a member of the state legislature in West Bengal, who was expelled because his sons sympathised with the Maoists.

Devrim

Devrim

11th April 2010, 10:16

I talked with a Communist (a Stalinist/Marxist) from the affected area, not too different than some of us here. He says that for the most part, the Naxalites are a group of bandits and criminals. Apparently some guerrillas have targeted peasants over there while ignoring the rich (they were bribed). Perhaps the guerrilla is unorganized and certain cells have lost their ideology?

If they "rich people" really give money to Maoists, then in my opinion, that would be the best use of their money. Hope this holy actions will give some more days to live in this Earth. Amen:)

I would imagine that there must be a certain amount of criminality. It invariably goes along with these types of armed groups.

When I was in India recently almost everyday there were horror stories in the media about the Maoists. Some of these no doubt will be sheer invention and black propaganda. Some of them will have something more to them.

I want to bring up two examples that I remember. One is of Maoists going to a village and making a 'revenge attack'. A couple of days later I saw that the Maoists were denying the action and blaming the state. I have know idea who was responsible, and to be honest although I don't trust the bourgeois media, I don't trust the Maoists either. There were similar events in this country, and while the majority of attacks on unarmed villages were perpetuated by the state, some were done by the PKK. It got to a stage where the state is murder villagers to blame it on the nationalists, and the nationalists were murdering villagers to blame it on the state. There is a certain extent to which the peasantry gets caught in the cross fire, with the state 'punishing' them for helping the rebels and vice versa. In this case I have no idea who was responsible. I would be very surprised though if Maoists hadn't punished peasants for helping the state, and that in some of those case the help that the state had extracted from the peasants in the first place was obtained with a gun to the head.

The second was an incident about an argument at a restaurant. According to the story I read in the newspaper, the Maoists felt they had been overcharged and came back and robbed the restaurant owner and burnt down his house, and also the several house nearby. The also threatened some school teachers and told them in the future that they would have to pay 'revolutionary tax'*. Now again, we have to take everything with a pinch of salt, but this to me has a ring of truth to it. Give young men guns and you will sometimes see things like this happen. A lot of political groups use this 'revolutionary tax' (let's call it by its real name, which is extortion. I think that there are two problems with it. The first is that although I am not particularly concerned about the 'principle' of extorting money from the bourgeoisie, there is a problem that when you start to behave like gangsters, you can quite easily end up as gangsters. The second is that it is absolutely wrong to extort money from workers. This is in no way socialist behaviour.

These are just two incidents that came to mind of the endless attacks on Maoists that come out in the Indian press, some of, which seamed to me to be totally absurd and obviously fabrications. Others like these seemed to me to be more believable. That is not to say that these particular incidents are true, but I would be more surprised if these sort of things didn't happen.

Devrim

*I can't remember the exact term used. This is the term that is used in Turkey

Devrim

11th April 2010, 10:22

The Naxalites have no way near the amount of money and funding that Hezbollah does. They're the poorest people in India and they use guns that are older than the state they're fighting.

It must take a lot of money to fund the Maoist operations even if some of their weapons are antiquated. As you say Hezbollah has a lot of funding. It is a part of the Lebanese state, and backed by the Syrian and Iranian states.

The Turkish PKK, for example, used to be backed by Syria, was until recently receiving support from the US (via its Iranian section). It is also known to be involved in the heroin trade, and less publically known has a large part of the 'white goods' market in states like Jordan.

I would be surprised if the Maoists managed to fund their operations on extortion alone. When I was there there seemed to be a suggestion that they were being backed by China, or even Pakistan. This was more speculation then anything I heard any proof for.

Devrim

Devrim

11th April 2010, 10:24

And to all the peaceful, non-violent European and North American comrades with oh-so-pure souls, I suggest that they spend just ONE week in the peripheral, marginalized regions of South Asia, organizing the rural poor.

As I said earlier in the thread what has 'organising the rural poor' to do with working class power?

Devrim

Devrim

11th April 2010, 10:28

Spawn of Stalin

11th April 2010, 11:14

Oh I agree 100%. To glorify the death of another individual is stupid and pointless, but to glorify the revolution is something entirely different. I can't say I'm in love with the fact that a bunch of people died, but this news has given me a lot more faith in the abilities of the Maoists, and the lives of 72 soldiers mean very little to me when they are lost in the name of building a more just India (and indeed, world), for every revolution from the Paris Commune to Cuba has taught us that if you don't dispose of the enemy, they will dispose of you. If we were talking about say, 72 proletarians, or 72 peasants, I would have an entirely different attitude, but these 72 people were willing to kill or be killed in the name of reaction, the sad fact is that they had it coming to them the minute they signed up.

Andropov

11th April 2010, 11:47

anyway devrim, a poster in here, was tortured in a syrian prision because he was accused of conspiring to overthrow the lebanese state. there was an indian militant who spent rotting in jail for 9 years. i think one of the phillipine comrades spent some years in jail too, but I am not sure about the last one (one of them was a political commissair for 20 years in a maoist phillipino guerrilla)
Cheers, its all news to me.

red cat

11th April 2010, 11:51

yes and you are a 75 year old conservative grandmother who lives in a villa

Saying all that won't help a bit in proving your claim. :lol:

Andropov

11th April 2010, 11:54

I was vaguely amused when the Maoist muppet the other day was asking us to name names. But come on you are in the IRSP. Be serious. We don't name individuals. How would you reply if someone on here asked you to name IRSP members, yet alone INLA members.
TBH Dev I dont really see the problem of naming those members who served time or are currently doing time.
If they have either done time or are doing it then the state obviously knows them very well so its not really divulging any sensitive infomation.
If you want I can list to you here all the people on the INLA wings North and South of the border, its not really a problem. If anything its better that more people are aware of their plight.
I just am genuinly curious as to who these people are because whether they are Left Communist, Maoist, Trotskyite or Marxist-Leninist I have genuine sympathy for them as I have seen the same state repression against my own comrades.

scarletghoul

11th April 2010, 11:58

As I said earlier in the thread what has 'organising the rural poor' to do with working class power?

Devrim
Can you really not see any link between the peasants' struggle for freedom and that of the workers ? Do you think it is just an seperate conflict with no relevence at all to the urban struggle ? The war in rural india has everything to do with working class power, as it is overthrowing the bourgeoisie and creating base areas for the forces of proletarian revolution to operate from.

bricolage

11th April 2010, 12:06

for every revolution from the Paris Commune to Cuba has taught us that if you don't dispose of the enemy, they will dispose of you.

To pick up on this I think what the Paris Commune taught us is that its defeat lay in the inability to win the support of the soldiers of the Versailles Army to the Communard cause, even Marx agreed; 'a revolution undermined by a civil war'. Trotsky could write all he wanted about how they should have attacked Versailles but the Commune would have been defeated either way unless the soldiers had defected. The failure of the Commune lay in the fact that what happened on the 18th March did not happen in bloody week. I think this is actually a very good lesson to take that you can't just assume 'attack attack attack' will always prevail.

Spawn of Stalin

11th April 2010, 12:41

Again, I agree, shooting anything that moves is a really bad idea and a recipe for defeat. Luckily the Maoists have decades of strategic genius to help them, in this instance the Maoists saw an opportunity and they took it, now they are better armed and likely in good spirits, most importantly they have won the faith of one British comrade, and hopefully a few more too.

red cat

11th April 2010, 12:45

As I said earlier in the thread what has 'organising the rural poor' to do with working class power?

Devrim

I guess the whole of the Indian proletariat is very rich and lives only in urban areas. :lol:

red cat

11th April 2010, 12:55

It must take a lot of money to fund the Maoist operations even if some of their weapons are antiquated. As you say Hezbollah has a lot of funding. It is a part of the Lebanese state, and backed by the Syrian and Iranian states.

The Turkish PKK, for example, used to be backed by Syria, was until recently receiving support from the US (via its Iranian section). It is also known to be involved in the heroin trade, and less publically known has a large part of the 'white goods' market in states like Jordan.

I would be surprised if the Maoists managed to fund their operations on extortion alone. When I was there there seemed to be a suggestion that they were being backed by China, or even Pakistan. This was more speculation then anything I heard any proof for.

Devrim

You are amazingly efficient in finding your way through each and every bourgeois slandering directed at Maoists.

The Indian Maoists have no external support. The government tries to associate them with Pakistan and China to use the national chauvinism of middle class Indians for legitimizing military operations against Maoists.

From the areas they liberate, they generally collect taxes from those who are able to pay. And in central India alone they have liberated an area which is more than half the size of Germany.

Sir Comradical

11th April 2010, 13:03

But the job of a CP is to consciously lead and develop the class struggle of the proletariat and oppressed masses. The CPI never did that.

I think we are derailing the thread here. If you start a thread about the communist movements of India, I will be happy to discuss these topics.

Yes, the CPI(Marxist) are basically reformists. However, workers struggling for meagre gains like land reform is still an expression of class struggle because even these minor reforms need to be fought for and won.

Sir Comradical

11th April 2010, 13:05

That is pretty tolerant by their standards. I spoke to one guy, whose father had been a member of the state legislature in West Bengal, who was expelled because his sons sympathised with the Maoists.

Devrim

Well yes there you go.

red cat

11th April 2010, 13:08

I would imagine that there must be a certain amount of criminality. It invariably goes along with these types of armed groups.

When I was in India recently almost everyday there were horror stories in the media about the Maoists. Some of these no doubt will be sheer invention and black propaganda. Some of them will have something more to them.

I want to bring up two examples that I remember. One is of Maoists going to a village and making a 'revenge attack'. A couple of days later I saw that the Maoists were denying the action and blaming the state. I have know idea who was responsible, and to be honest although I don't trust the bourgeois media, I don't trust the Maoists either. There were similar events in this country, and while the majority of attacks on unarmed villages were perpetuated by the state, some were done by the PKK. It got to a stage where the state is murder villagers to blame it on the nationalists, and the nationalists were murdering villagers to blame it on the state. There is a certain extent to which the peasantry gets caught in the cross fire, with the state 'punishing' them for helping the rebels and vice versa. In this case I have no idea who was responsible. I would be very surprised though if Maoists hadn't punished peasants for helping the state, and that in some of those case the help that the state had extracted from the peasants in the first place was obtained with a gun to the head.

The second was an incident about an argument at a restaurant. According to the story I read in the newspaper, the Maoists felt they had been overcharged and came back and robbed the restaurant owner and burnt down his house, and also the several house nearby. The also threatened some school teachers and told them in the future that they would have to pay 'revolutionary tax'*. Now again, we have to take everything with a pinch of salt, but this to me has a ring of truth to it. Give young men guns and you will sometimes see things like this happen. A lot of political groups use this 'revolutionary tax' (let's call it by its real name, which is extortion. I think that there are two problems with it. The first is that although I am not particularly concerned about the 'principle' of extorting money from the bourgeoisie, there is a problem that when you start to behave like gangsters, you can quite easily end up as gangsters. The second is that it is absolutely wrong to extort money from workers. This is in no way socialist behaviour.

These are just two incidents that came to mind of the endless attacks on Maoists that come out in the Indian press, some of, which seamed to me to be totally absurd and obviously fabrications. Others like these seemed to me to be more believable. That is not to say that these particular incidents are true, but I would be more surprised if these sort of things didn't happen.

Devrim

*I can't remember the exact term used. This is the term that is used in Turkey

The bourgeois media often resorts to blatantly lying about Maoists. Sometimes those killed by the police or private armies of the feudal lords are claimed to be killed by Maoists. Sometimes Maoists expose the lies so quickly that the media never speaks of them after a few hours. The lies that have taken more time to expose are being listed here (http://www.bannedthought.net/India/Disinformation/index.htm). There has been no proved case of massive assaults on the Indian Maoists' side so far, except perhaps the cases in which villagers were forced to dress up as government troops at gun point and march through booby-trapped areas in front of the original troops.

Interestingly, in South Asia, Maoists don't go to restaurants or even drink or smoke. Most of the South Asian proletariat and broad masses are so impoverished that these are like ultimate luxuries to them. The Maoist code of conduct expects its cadres to be one with the oppressed masses. Hence, drinking is against the party rules and smoking and other bourgeois luxuries like going to restaurants etc. are actively discouraged.

Your description fits the army, police, private armies and parliamentary party-cadres, but not Maoists at least.

EDIT: Check out Arundhati Roy's articles for more information on Maoist lifestyle.

Sir Comradical

11th April 2010, 13:11

It must take a lot of money to fund the Maoist operations even if some of their weapons are antiquated. As you say Hezbollah has a lot of funding. It is a part of the Lebanese state, and backed by the Syrian and Iranian states.

The Turkish PKK, for example, used to be backed by Syria, was until recently receiving support from the US (via its Iranian section). It is also known to be involved in the heroin trade, and less publically known has a large part of the 'white goods' market in states like Jordan.

I would be surprised if the Maoists managed to fund their operations on extortion alone. When I was there there seemed to be a suggestion that they were being backed by China, or even Pakistan. This was more speculation then anything I heard any proof for.

Devrim

The Maoists are NOT backed by Pakistan, that's just Indian propaganda with no evidence at all. Why would a plutocratic military regime that collaborates with the US want to support a movement that would want to see them overthrown? That makes no sense. As for the Chinese, they have too much of a stake in the Indian state to support a peasant movement, even one basing its ideology on their nation's founder. The reality is that the Maoists act as a de-facto government in many parts of India, so yes they would be taxing people and using this money for arms. They also rob banks which is entirely justifiable, after all guns don't grow on trees.

Why is it that when the state does it, it's called "tax" but when Maoists do it, it's called "extortion"?

Saorsa

11th April 2010, 15:00

I read about the Maoist code of conduct with a cigarette in my mouth and a half empty bottle of wine at my side... It makes you think ae. The things I take for granted are incredible luxuries to most people on this planet. You know it on an intellectual level, but it's easy to forget nonetheless.

Lyev

11th April 2010, 20:21

You're a trotskyist, an ideology named after the founder of the Red Army. So why the double standards? Afterall, the soldiers of the White-Army had families too!
No, actually.

I know I'm a Trotskyist, I know he founded the Red Army, I know he killed people. And of course I understand that a revolution, civil war or upheaval means people will die; it's a basic presupposition.

What I do slightly object to is the nonchalant dismissal of death. I think I can safely that no-one here -- including me -- has the faintest idea what killing a human being is like, or, at least, we can assume it's an absolutely dreadful thing to have to do.

In fact, I could just as easily accuse you of "double standards" for saying "hey, that's war" when you have almost definitely never killed someone.

Sir Comradical

11th April 2010, 22:34

No, actually.

I know I'm a Trotskyist, I know he founded the Red Army, I know he killed people. And of course I understand that a revolution, civil war or upheaval means people will die; it's a basic presupposition.

What I do slightly object to is the nonchalant dismissal of death. I think I can safely that no-one here -- including me -- has the faintest idea what killing a human being is like, or, at least, we can assume it's an absolutely dreadful thing to have to do.

In fact, I could just as easily accuse you of "double standards" for saying "hey, that's war" when you have almost definitely never killed someone.

I wasn't dismissing the deaths of Indian soldiers, if you remember I said "sure I feel sorry for the poor Indian soldier...". All right, around 80 soldiers died in this ambush, did you know that more Indians died because of cold weather over the last winter, which in Northern India can get quite severe. It's capitalism that kills these people.

What double standards? What on earth are you on about? I don't need to have killed people to take an entirely realistic position on this issue.

black magick hustla

12th April 2010, 00:16

Saying all that won't help a bit in proving your claim. :lol:

you cant prove you arent a rich conservative grandmother either

Leo

12th April 2010, 13:11

The Maoists are NOT backed by Pakistan, that's just Indian propaganda with no evidence at all. Why would a plutocratic military regime that collaborates with the US want to support a movement that would want to see them overthrown? That makes no sense.

I can very much believe that Pakistan is indeed funding the Indian Maoists - bourgeois states constantly support "armed rebel groups" who fight against their rivals. Ideology rarely matters in things like this, although possibly making things easier. Pakistan supporting the Indian Maoists is no more unlikely than Syria backing up the PKK. Of course Syria itself was a state almost as oppressive against Kurds as the Turkish state was, and of course the PKK was saying that it was fighting for the independent united Kurdistan at the time, but Syria backed the PKK and the PKK gladly accepted the help. I have no reason to believe the Indian Maoists would act in any different way. Similarly, it was well known that in the past the US was pretty supportive of the People's Mujahedin group, which claims to be a socialist organization, committed to the armed overthrow of "Western imperialism" as well as capitalism in general. The support given to this group, by Democrats but also by Republicans was very vocal, and included that of US senators, congressmen, attorney generals etc. There are many similar examples.

pranabjyoti

12th April 2010, 16:04

While I can only have respect and admiration for the ICC members who have been in South Asian jails, I must say that on this forum at least, I often wonder if the ICC comrades can move beyond Western Europe in 1848.

I do not believe that the Maoists alone have a complete solution for achieving socialism in India (or for that matter anywhere else in the world). I'm not envisaging the Indian Maoists marching into Delhi tomorrow.

But what I do believe is that in the areas where the Maoists of India are operating, relations between the state and its subjects are very different from anything that most of the First World comrades on this forum are familiar with. This different reality means that left-wing politics in these areas is a very messy affair. It requires discipline, it requires political and theoretical insight and even more importantly: when you are confronted with open thuggery, you have to learn to respond to it in the same currency.

I believe that of course the Maoists will have to work with a wide variety of groups throughout India if they are to move beyond their current areas of influence. They will have to engage with the huge lower-caste movements in India, the question of the Muslim minority, the urban working-class, etc. They will also have to find some way of engaging with the urban middle-class, which is much more affected and attracted by globalization and the "India Shining" thing.

But having pointed out all of those challenges, I have to admit that currently, the Maoists in India seem to be the only Left faction which has a clear vision of what the people of their area want and how it is to be achieved and defended.

I can hardly say the same for the CPI or the CPI-M, for instance.
I am assuring everybody that India will shine far more in BRIGHT READ. On these days, they will show the world how to progress without harming environment and future of mankind by making conditions worse in the other part of the world. This may seem like a DREAM today, but THE BASE IS READY COMRADES.

red cat

12th April 2010, 16:05

you cant prove you arent a rich conservative grandmother either

But I hadn't claimed anything like this. Since you were the ones who claimed that the ICC has a nationally popular ex-Maoist member in India, the burden of proof lies upon you.

By the way, you won't be able to prove that I am not Hawking or Perelman either. :)

red cat

12th April 2010, 16:10

I can very much believe that Pakistan is indeed funding the Indian Maoists - bourgeois states constantly support "armed rebel groups" who fight against their rivals. Ideology rarely matters in things like this, although possibly making things easier. Pakistan supporting the Indian Maoists is no more unlikely than Syria backing up the PKK. Of course Syria itself was a state almost as oppressive against Kurds as the Turkish state was, and of course the PKK was saying that it was fighting for the independent united Kurdistan at the time, but Syria backed the PKK and the PKK gladly accepted the help. I have no reason to believe the Indian Maoists would act in any different way. Similarly, it was well known that in the past the US was pretty supportive of the People's Mujahedin group, which claims to be a socialist organization, committed to the armed overthrow of "Western imperialism" as well as capitalism in general. The support given to this group, by Democrats but also by Republicans was very vocal, and included that of US senators, congressmen, attorney generals etc. There are many similar examples.

It is wrong to come to such conclusions without looking for proper evidence. Your claim might be true for PKK and Syria, but it is certainly not true for India and Pakistan. Both of these countries follow a very clever policy of drowning public dissent in national chauvinism and war with each other. Both of them need each other to divert their masses. So, Pakistan will never support something that can actually destroy the present Indian state.

pranabjyoti

12th April 2010, 17:08

I would imagine that there must be a certain amount of criminality. It invariably goes along with these types of armed groups.
When you are challenging the existing system, you certainly are a criminal. I want suggestions from people here about how to collect money for continuing and advancing a revolutionary struggle.

When I was in India recently almost everyday there were horror stories in the media about the Maoists. Some of these no doubt will be sheer invention and black propaganda. Some of them will have something more to them.

I want to bring up two examples that I remember. One is of Maoists going to a village and making a 'revenge attack'. A couple of days later I saw that the Maoists were denying the action and blaming the state. I have know idea who was responsible, and to be honest although I don't trust the bourgeois media, I don't trust the Maoists either. There were similar events in this country, and while the majority of attacks on unarmed villages were perpetuated by the state, some were done by the PKK. It got to a stage where the state is murder villagers to blame it on the nationalists, and the nationalists were murdering villagers to blame it on the state. There is a certain extent to which the peasantry gets caught in the cross fire, with the state 'punishing' them for helping the rebels and vice versa. In this case I have no idea who was responsible. I would be very surprised though if Maoists hadn't punished peasants for helping the state, and that in some of those case the help that the state had extracted from the peasants in the first place was obtained with a gun to the head.

The second was an incident about an argument at a restaurant. According to the story I read in the newspaper, the Maoists felt they had been overcharged and came back and robbed the restaurant owner and burnt down his house, and also the several house nearby. The also threatened some school teachers and told them in the future that they would have to pay 'revolutionary tax'*. Now again, we have to take everything with a pinch of salt, but this to me has a ring of truth to it. Give young men guns and you will sometimes see things like this happen. A lot of political groups use this 'revolutionary tax' (let's call it by its real name, which is extortion. I think that there are two problems with it. The first is that although I am not particularly concerned about the 'principle' of extorting money from the bourgeoisie, there is a problem that when you start to behave like gangsters, you can quite easily end up as gangsters. The second is that it is absolutely wrong to extort money from workers. This is in no way socialist behaviour.

These are just two incidents that came to mind of the endless attacks on Maoists that come out in the Indian press, some of, which seamed to me to be totally absurd and obviously fabrications. Others like these seemed to me to be more believable. That is not to say that these particular incidents are true, but I would be more surprised if these sort of things didn't happen.

Devrim

*I can't remember the exact term used. This is the term that is used in Turkey
ALL WORKERS ARE NOT SAME. What you have said is true, if "extortion policy" is applied overall to the working class. An individual worker can certainly be reactionary minded and for a white collar worker in countries like India, the possibility is very very high. I myself know some Govt. employees in my state West Bengal, who have huge amount of land and have a considerable amount of income from that lands. if one day, Maoists would "confiscate" those lands and would distribute that land to landless peasants or set up a collective farm, that doesn't mean attack on workers. THINGS AREN'T THAN SIMPLE AS YOU THINK.
Moreover, there may be stray incidents, but that doesn't reflect the actual working principle of a party.

Leo

12th April 2010, 20:07

It is wrong to come to such conclusions without looking for proper evidence. Your claim might be true for PKK and Syria, but it is certainly not true for India and Pakistan. Both of these countries follow a very clever policy of drowning public dissent in national chauvinism and war with each other. Both of them need each other to divert their masses. So, Pakistan will never support something that can actually destroy the present Indian state.

The whole "analysis" here would utterly fail, on the other hand, as soon as it is pointed out that the Maoists are not "something that can actually destroy the present Indian state". Now I am not saying as a fact that Pakistan supports the Indian Maoists. What I am saying is that it would make perfect sense if they did, and the Maoists would gladly accept the help.

Lyev

12th April 2010, 20:45

I wasn't dismissing the deaths of Indian soldiers, if you remember I said "sure I feel sorry for the poor Indian soldier...". All right, around 80 soldiers died in this ambush, did you know that more Indians died because of cold weather over the last winter, which in Northern India can get quite severe. It's capitalism that kills these people.

What double standards? What on earth are you on about? I don't need to have killed people to take an entirely realistic position on this issue.
Fair enough comrade; from your response, it sounded like you didn't much care about people dying. I'm not sure why capitalism killed 80 paramilitaries though. Anyway, if people have to die, it shouldn't be something that is totally unimportant or insignificant IMO.

We Shall Rise Again

13th April 2010, 00:10

well done to the maoist cadres involved.

India and nepal are a shining light to those of us struggling for National Liberation in Ireland- Vastly different locations, but the objective is the same.

Tiocfaidh ár lá maoist comrades.:thumbup1:

Sir Comradical

13th April 2010, 03:57

I can very much believe that Pakistan is indeed funding the Indian Maoists - bourgeois states constantly support "armed rebel groups" who fight against their rivals. Ideology rarely matters in things like this, although possibly making things easier. Pakistan supporting the Indian Maoists is no more unlikely than Syria backing up the PKK. Of course Syria itself was a state almost as oppressive against Kurds as the Turkish state was, and of course the PKK was saying that it was fighting for the independent united Kurdistan at the time, but Syria backed the PKK and the PKK gladly accepted the help. I have no reason to believe the Indian Maoists would act in any different way. Similarly, it was well known that in the past the US was pretty supportive of the People's Mujahedin group, which claims to be a socialist organization, committed to the armed overthrow of "Western imperialism" as well as capitalism in general. The support given to this group, by Democrats but also by Republicans was very vocal, and included that of US senators, congressmen, attorney generals etc. There are many similar examples.

That's such a left-communist thing to say! No but in all seriousness, you're absolutely right and I didn't consider the aforementioned examples where states have supported leftist parties when it suited their agenda. However there's no real evidence that Pakistan supports the Maoists, I guess I should leave it at that.

red cat

13th April 2010, 04:16

The whole "analysis" here would utterly fail, on the other hand, as soon as it is pointed out that the Maoists are not "something that can actually destroy the present Indian state".

I'm sorry, Maoists will disappoint you yet again. :lol:

Now I am not saying as a fact that Pakistan supports the Indian Maoists. What I am saying is that it would make perfect sense if they did, and the Maoists would gladly accept the help.

Presently all the imperialist powers stand united against communists. Their colonies too will act accordingly. So no such "supporting" will take place, not in near future at least.

black magick hustla

13th April 2010, 13:16

But I hadn't claimed anything like this. Since you were the ones who claimed that the ICC has a nationally popular ex-Maoist member in India, the burden of proof lies upon you.

By the way, you won't be able to prove that I am not Hawking or Perelman either. :)

:shrugs: The only reason why I said that is because you are a silly keyboard australian maoist muppet that was accusing us from being westerners pontificating. Let us leave it like that.

red cat

13th April 2010, 13:30

:shrugs: The only reason why I said that is because you are a silly keyboard australian maoist muppet that was accusing us from being westerners pontificating. Let us leave it like that.

I love these meaningless nick-names coming from cornered self-proclaimed communists. :thumbup1:

Saorsa

13th April 2010, 13:37

What makes you think Red Cat is Australian? :confused:

black magick hustla

13th April 2010, 13:45

idk, i am pretty sure he is from either australia or NZ, i dont remember why. i tend to mash up both countries!

Saorsa

13th April 2010, 13:56

He's not.

And I would have you know sir that New Zealand is a far nicer country than Australia with a much more rich, vibrant and interesting culture and history.

black magick hustla

13th April 2010, 13:57

yes ive checked the ip, hmmmmm i stand corrected

black magick hustla

13th April 2010, 13:58

He's not.

And I would have you know sir that New Zealand is a far nicer country than Australia with a much more rich, vibrant and interesting culture and history.

i like australia. they have race riots even today just because some brown man sat in the wrong place

red cat

13th April 2010, 14:18

yes ive checked the ip, hmmmmm i stand corrected
;)

pranabjyoti

13th April 2010, 18:52

Sir Comradical

14th April 2010, 00:10

Fair enough comrade; from your response, it sounded like you didn't much care about people dying. I'm not sure why capitalism killed 80 paramilitaries though. Anyway, if people have to die, it shouldn't be something that is totally unimportant or insignificant IMO.

I didn't say it did. I'm just pointing out that while bullets and ambushes are exciting enough to make headline news, the vast majority, the real victims of capitalist oppression, they die silently in the villages.

black magick hustla

14th April 2010, 02:41

http://www.revleft.com/vb/spring-thunder-indias-t132890/index.html
Examples of DEMOCRATIC India. danyboy25 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=17092), Devrim, Expropriate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25298) kindly make some comments on the incidents of JNU. And please, don't just limit your reactions to "ALSO :) CONDEMN" kind. A rather detailed response. Kindly specifically tell us that if such incidents would happen in your countries or with you, what would be your reactions.

I don't get your point. In Mexico, in the 68, hundreds of students where gunned down in a demonstration. In Turkey, there are militants who had their parents tortured, and other people who had their friends killed in the coup. I don't think India is any worse than any other third world country. They are all part of international capital, and they all have blood running in their streets.

RadioRaheem84

14th April 2010, 05:20

I don't think India is any worse than any other third world country.

The Indian Situation is severe and driven by the pressures of modernization and globalization at warp speed. What do you expect the peasants to do?

pranabjyoti

14th April 2010, 07:25

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/13/...arundhati-roy/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/13/india-police-consider-charges-against-arundhati-roy/)
The Indian police is now planning to arrest Arundhuti Roy. Now its the time to go beyond just discussion and news spreading. We have to do something. I suggest boycotting of Indian goods and arrange protest, whenever any Indian minister will visit your respective nation. Specially the Prime Minister and the ******* minister of home affairs P Chidambaram. I want suggestions from others regarding that matter.

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:20

Can you really not see any link between the peasants' struggle for freedom and that of the workers ? Do you think it is just an seperate conflict with no relevence at all to the urban struggle ? The war in rural india has everything to do with working class power, as it is overthrowing the bourgeoisie and creating base areas for the forces of proletarian revolution to operate from.

I don't see any link at all. I don't believe that the working class revolution will operate from 'base areas'. It will operate from workplaces. I don't see the difference as urban/rural, but one of class, and I think that the peasants do not have the same class interests as workers.

Finally I don't see it as a 'peasants struggle', but as the struggle of a group claiming to act on the peasants behalf.

Devrim

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:21

As I said earlier in the thread what has 'organising the rural poor' to do with working class power?I guess the whole of the Indian proletariat is very rich and lives only in urban areas. :lol:

The term 'poor', whether urban or rural, in Marxist terminology does not relate to the working class at all, but rather to other sectors.

Devrim

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:28

It is wrong to come to such conclusions without looking for proper evidence.

I don't think that we said that it was true. I think I said that people speculated about it. Personally, I would be very surprised if they weren't getting outside aid from another state, and the regional rivals of India seem the logical place to look. That said I haven't seen any proof for it.

Your claim might be true for PKK and Syria, but it is certainly not true for India and Pakistan. Both of these countries follow a very clever policy of drowning public dissent in national chauvinism and war with each other. Both of them need each other to divert their masses. So, Pakistan will never support something that can actually destroy the present Indian state.

Even within your own logic, that would need the Pakistani state to believe that the Maoists could overthrow the Indian state. Note that this doesn't refer to your beliefs, but refers to theirs. I think that the Maoists can't or won't overthrow the Indian state would be quite a reasonable position for them to hold especially considering that the Maoists are constantly calling for peace talks, not something you do when you are in a claer position to win.

Devrim

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:32

ALL WORKERS ARE NOT SAME. What you have said is true, if "extortion policy" is applied overall to the working class. An individual worker can certainly be reactionary minded and for a white collar worker in countries like India, the possibility is very very high. I myself know some Govt. employees in my state West Bengal, who have huge amount of land and have a considerable amount of income from that lands. if one day, Maoists would "confiscate" those lands and would distribute that land to landless peasants or set up a collective farm, that doesn't mean attack on workers. THINGS AREN'T THAN SIMPLE AS YOU THINK.
Moreover, there may be stray incidents, but that doesn't reflect the actual working principle of a party.

This incident didn't refer to the confiscation of land, but to the fact that they would be forced to pay money every month. I don't know how common this is, but stray incidents have a tendency to become more generalised.

To me that seems a more reasonable position to hold than the one that some people seem to hold on here, which seems to think that all Maoists are 'angels'.

We, on the other hand, don't think that they are 'bad people', but think that these type of organisations have a tendency to perpetuate this sort of activity.

Devrim

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:37

http://www.revleft.com/vb/spring-thunder-indias-t132890/index.html
Examples of DEMOCRATIC India. danyboy25 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=17092), Devrim, Expropriate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25298) kindly make some comments on the incidents of JNU. And please, don't just limit your reactions to "ALSO :) CONDEMN" kind. A rather detailed response. Kindly specifically tell us that if such incidents would happen in your countries or with you, what would be your reactions.

Does JNU here refer to the university. I am not sure what went on their. When we say India is 'democratic' that's what we think democracy is.

Is the UK 'democratic'? Yes, we think so. They ran death squads in Northern ıreland though.

I think that whatever it is we are talking about, and I am sure that equally bad incidents do go on in this country, my impression is that Turkey is a little more repressive in general than India, the first reaction in our publications and personal contacts is to condemn state barbarity. However, this is a left-wing discussion forum, and the audience is somewhat different, so the focus of the discussion is too.

Devrim

Palingenisis

14th April 2010, 21:39

To me that seems a more reasonable position to hold than the one that some people seem to hold on here, which seems to think that all Maoists are 'angels'.

I hope that no one here thinks all Maoists are "angels".

Revolutionary struggle tends to attract the worst aswell the best of a generation. Some people are into violence for its own sake. Most of the time they join actual criminal gangs or Imperialist armies but under certain circumstances they end up in revolutionary forces. Im sure they also existed in the ranks of the KAPD when it was engaged in armed struggles.

Sir Comradical

14th April 2010, 22:34

I don't see any link at all. I don't believe that the working class revolution will operate from 'base areas'. It will operate from workplaces. I don't see the difference as urban/rural, but one of class, and I think that the peasants do not have the same class interests as workers.

Finally I don't see it as a 'peasants struggle', but as the struggle of a group claiming to act on the peasants behalf.

Devrim

Funny you say that, because the Indian bourgeoisie makes the same accusation, as if to say that the Naxal insurgency is the work of outside agitators while feigning sympathy for India's 'backward castes' - as they're called.

Tell me, how does one confirm that an organization truly is comprised of the class it claims to represent?

red cat

14th April 2010, 23:28

The term 'poor', whether urban or rural, in Marxist terminology does not relate to the working class at all, but rather to other sectors.

Devrim

If the Maoists stuck to Marxism while making each and every statement, then today they would have been as popular as ICC in India. :rolleyes:

red cat

14th April 2010, 23:36

I don't think that we said that it was true. I think I said that people speculated about it. Personally, I would be very surprised if they weren't getting outside aid from another state, and the regional rivals of India seem the logical place to look. That said I haven't seen any proof for it.

Even within your own logic, that would need the Pakistani state to believe that the Maoists could overthrow the Indian state. Note that this doesn't refer to your beliefs, but refers to theirs. I think that the Maoists can't or won't overthrow the Indian state would be quite a reasonable position for them to hold especially considering that the Maoists are constantly calling for peace talks, not something you do when you are in a claer position to win.

Devrim

Calling for peace talks is a part of struggle. It is when the fighters rest and organize and the mass bases spread. Maoists claim to be fighting for peace. So they need to continuously expose the warmongering nature of the bourgeois government to bring the masses more and more into direct contradiction with it. Those who have carefully studied the history of China and warfare in general, would be knowing this very well. Top ranking officers in the Indian army have predicted a Maoist takeover within a few decades at most. Pakistan is pretty aware of the potential of Maoists.

the last donut of the night

14th April 2010, 23:45

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 00:01

Saorsa

15th April 2010, 00:04

Those police were murderers, rapists and general scum. The fact that they may or may not have come from working class/poor peasant backgrounds is completely irrelevant.

We should celebrate their deaths. I know I do.

red cat

15th April 2010, 00:04

Devrim

15th April 2010, 00:25

Top ranking officers in the Indian army have predicted a Maoist takeover within a few decades at most.

Without having seen these statements, I think that it is important to be aware that Indian army officiers have a clear interest in playing the thread up in order to get more money for the army. That doesn't mean that they are not genuinely concerned, but it is also possible to see why they would exaggerate.

Pakistan is pretty aware of the potential of Maoists.

Yes, but Pakistan doesn't have a Maoist problem, and I doubt they see it spreading over their boarders immediately. Would Pakistan fund enemies of the Indian state? Undoubtedly, it does. Are they funding the Maoists? I don't know. All I say is that it wouldn't surprise me, and in general armed groups do need financial backing. The PKK, for example despite its interests in the drug trade, its legitimate interests in business, such as the white goods trade in Jordan, its collecting of 'revolutionary tax', not only in Kurdistan, but also in Western Europe, still made itself a client of the Syrians, and then tried to prostitute itself to the US. Waging a 'revolutionary war' is an expensive business.

Devrim

red cat

15th April 2010, 00:32

Without having seen these statements, I think that it is important to be aware that Indian army officiers have a clear interest in playing the thread up in order to get more money for the army. That doesn't mean that they are not genuinely concerned, but it is also possible to see why they would exaggerate.

True, but the rate in which Indian Maoists are expanding makes me think otherwise about this being an exaggeration.

Yes, but Pakistan doesn't have a Maoist problem, and I doubt they see it spreading over their boarders immediately. Would Pakistan fund enemies of the Indian state? Undoubtedly, it does. Are they funding the Maoists? I don't know. All I say is that it wouldn't surprise me, and in general armed groups do need financial backing. The PKK, for example despite its interests in the drug trade, its legitimate interests in business, such as the white goods trade in Jordan, its collecting of 'revolutionary tax', not only in Kurdistan, but also in Western Europe, still made itself a client of the Syrians, and then tried to prostitute itself to the US. Waging a 'revolutionary war' is an expensive business.

Devrim

Pakistan's alleged "fundings" are limited to Islamist terrorist groups, not even the revolutionary nationalist parties of India. I will not comment on the PKK, but any power, like the Maoists, that has been utilize fully the natural and human resources of India, will not need any external financial backing at least.

ZeroNowhere

15th April 2010, 00:45

You mourn the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini, don't you ?
They presumably don't celebrate them.

Lyev

15th April 2010, 00:53

We should celebrate their deaths. I know I do.If we celebrate their deaths, we celebrate them on a completely subjective premise. A right-winger would celebrate the death(s) of a Maoist, because the right-winger thinks Maoism is abhorrent. It's not a matter of "should". And I agree with danyboy; this is not a video-game. I think it's a sad state of affairs when people have become so desensitized to the violence that they want to celebrate it. Do you enjoy this violence? It's only celebratory from a certain standpoint. A standpoint that is by no means concrete. Do you really think you would celebrate this under fire, crouched in the mud, with an AK47 shaking in your hands? I think it's ironic that the ultimate aim of a movement like this is to build something positive, to build a freer future, yet in the process so much gets destroyed. It seems slightly paradoxical to me that someone can celebrate destruction, whilst creation is their aim.

Lyev

15th April 2010, 01:04

Hey, should we forgive the poor working-class Israeli soldiers that kill Palestinian children?

In revolutionary times, there's no time for this kind of moralistic judgment. It's either the people fighting for their lives or capitalism.
Your reading skills need some work, comrade. I've read through the passage that you quoted me from at least a dozen times, and I still can't find "I've forgiven capitalists and all their minions". Unless we're reading a different thing? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "revolutionary times", because the Naxalite uprising in India is happening right now, yet I've just had the time for a "moralistic judgement".

Anyway, there's no need to twist everything I say. We don't know for sure the backgrounds of every one of the Indian soldiers killed. We're just guessing, unless anyone wants to look up every single paramilitary that was killed in the ambush. We don't know that they're "rapists" etc.; it's just a guess. Someone else might look at a Maoist, and think of the purported deaths under Mao, then deduce that the Maoist is a murderer. Both are assumptions, don't you think?

Lyev

15th April 2010, 01:09

You mourn the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini, don't you ?Well, it's a tricky one. I certainly don't mourn them. Of course I don't. I think they were both vile and inhumane despots. Yet, it seems strange that you can reproach them for having killed so many, but then when they die, it's something to celebrate.

Just as a little aside, mostly everything I've said throughout this thread is just general musings, and sometimes I say things just to play devil's advocate a bit.

red cat

15th April 2010, 01:09

Someone else might look at a Maoist, and think of the purported deaths under Mao, then deduce that the Maoist is a murderer. Both are assumptions, don't you think?

But the Maoist will prove himself through his actions.

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 01:14

you are quite skilled in distorting what people say arent you?
a passion of your?

he meant what i said earlier: if one must take another one life, so be it, but the death of individual should never be celebrated.

Its not a fucking video game btw, killing someone is something that should not be taken lightly.

The succes of a war or a struggle have nothing to do with the number of ennemy you kill or the number of men you lose, its about the objective you want to meet.

Where have I heard this argument before...oh yeah...since the start of the thread. I also remember when I responded, in which seemed to have been given thanks to those that are supporting the actions by the Naxalites, only concluding their very beliefs as well on the situation:

The fact that the Indian Maoists were organized enough to do so much damage, then it only confirms the strength of the Maoists, themselves. Which is an importance as they continue to wage revolutionary warfare against the Indian State. Just because it was a sad day & we shouldn't celebrate the deaths of so many, we should be able to rejoice in recognition that our numbers are gaining strength in an area where it seemed unlikely at one time for the Indian Maoists. So I will celebrate. Not for the deaths, but for the strength that's rising.

UPDATE: Looks like I have to take out the video because it's a "breach of protocol"! "OH LAWDZ MASTA! PLEASE NO, I HASN'T HAD A IDEA, I'MA SORRY MASTA. PLEASE DON'T BRING OUT THA WHIP MASTA!"

Saorsa

15th April 2010, 01:36

If we celebrate their deaths, we celebrate them on a completely subjective premise. A right-winger would celebrate the death(s) of a Maoist, because the right-winger thinks Maoism is abhorrent.

This is true. We celebrate all things on a subjective premise - our thoughts, our perceptions of the world, are subjective by their very nature.

It's not a matter of "should".

Yet now you're making objective statements of fact on a subjective question. It is a question of should - that's what we're discussing here. And to me, when I look at this succesful operation, all I see is the army of the oppressed people striking a blow against a bunch of murdering rapists. These bastards are currently rampaging through tribal areas to free them up for bauxite mining, and this was in many ways a defensive operation. There are now 80 less corporate murderers in India. This is something to be celebrated not because we take pleasure in the act of death itself, not because guns are cool or whatever, but because this was an act of class war which ended in victory for the oppressed. The struggle for revolution is a struggle for power, and all power is ultimately based on the threat of violence. That's what power is. Revolution isn't some nice friendly exchange of views over a cup of tea, it's a violent act by which one class overthrows anothers. Actions like these are an integral part of it, and you need to get over your squeamishness with regards to them. Don't waste your sympathy on the paramilitary thugs of the state! Spare it for their victims, who have just hit back.

And I agree with danyboy; this is not a video-game. I think it's a sad state of affairs when people have become so desensitized to the violence that they want to celebrate it. Do you enjoy this violence? It's only celebratory from a certain standpoint. A standpoint that is by no means concrete. Do you really think you would celebrate this under fire, crouched in the mud, with an AK47 shaking in your hands?

Spare me the moralistic bullshit. You really think the reason people are celebrating this action is because they've played too many videogames? Please. You sound like a christian conservative. The point is to analyse this from a class perspective, and work out which forces are represented by the Maoists on the one hand and the police on the other. It wasn't just full time Maoist fighters that took part in this attack, there were reportedly hundreds of tribal people with bows and arrows and swords taking part as well - this was an act of retaliation for the destruction of their homes, the rape of women and the murder of their sons and daughters. To be neutral in this situation is to side with the oppressor.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you ask whether I'd enjoy shaking in the mud with an AK. I can't say - probably not I imagine. I've been born into a very different life in a very different country where armed struggle isn't on the cards. This isn't about enjoyment, and all the people moralising and getting teary eyed about the poor dead troops need to get that into their heads. This is about necessity, and in India at the moment the necessity is for the masses to arm themselves, organise themselves and wage war against their oppressors. When they succeed in this, when their efforts pay off... that's something to be celebrated. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I think it's ironic that the ultimate aim of a movement like this is to build something positive, to build a freer future, yet in the process so much gets destroyed. It seems slightly paradoxical to me that someone can celebrate destruction, whilst creation is their aim.

Destruction and creation are interlinked. Does an architect cry when some shitty concrete tower gets knocked down to make way for a beautiful building?

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 02:06

Where have I heard this argument before...oh yeah...since the start of the thread. I also remember when I responded, in which seemed to have been given thanks to those that are supporting the actions by the Naxalites, only concluding their very beliefs as well on the situation:

the number of people killed in a military operation dosnt determine its succes or even the efficiency of the Maoist troops.

if the goal was to somehow impress the indian army, or to demonstrate the naxalite strenght, it failed.

Killing undertrained paramilitary moving in a visible straight line with dificulty in a rough terrain they hardly know dosnt mean shit.

red cat

15th April 2010, 02:12

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 02:14

the number of people killed in a military operation dosnt determine its succes or even the efficiency of the Maoist troops.

if the goal was to somehow impress the indian army, or to demonstrate the naxalite strenght, it failed.

Killing undertrained paramilitary moving in a visible straight line with dificulty in a rough terrain they hardly know dosnt mean shit.

Wow, you really took this out of context. I never said that that's what they're doing. They're doing this because they're the opposition & they need to gain as much territory as possible. I've heard your type of arguments before during the rise of the Nepalese Maoists. Yet, here we are, & the Nepalese Maoists have the majority, & more than likely will overthrow the State in a few weeks. Where you get the idea that they were doing it to "impress the indian army" is beyond me. I see it as a symbol of showing how much strength they have through militant solidarity.

red cat

15th April 2010, 02:20

They're doing this because they're the opposition & they need to gain as much territory as possible.

Right. Moreover, the principles of guerrilla warfare are to hit the enemy at its weakest point; at the place where it is most vulnerable. For this the guerrillas must rehearse their attack several time at the same place where it is going to happen, booby-trap it thoroughly, and then draw the enemy troops to that place. This action proves that the Indian Maoists are masters of guerrilla warfare.

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 02:25

Killing undertrained paramilitary moving in a visible straight line with dificulty in a rough terrain they hardly know dosnt mean shit.

Also, even if what you stated was true (which it wasn't as shown by Red Cat), that would really only show that the Naxalites are going by a correct line of how to achieve proper guerrilla warfare:

An entrenched enemy is never the favorite prey of the guerilla fighter; he prefers his enemy to be on the move, nervous, not knowing the ground, fearful of everything and without natural protections for defense. ~Guerrilla Warfare by Che Guevara

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 02:36

Right. Moreover, the principles of guerrilla warfare are to hit the enemy at its weakest point; at the place where it is most vulnerable. For this the guerrillas must rehearse their attack several time at the same place where it is going to happen, booby-trap it thoroughly, and then draw the enemy troops to that place. This action proves that the Indian Maoists are masters of guerrilla warfare.

Exactly, I chuckle when I see people debating guerrilla tactics from behind a keyboard, I think Kishenjis of the world know a little bit more about limited-means warfare than any of us do.

gorillafuck

15th April 2010, 02:39

Well, it's a tricky one. I certainly don't mourn them. Of course I don't. I think they were both vile and inhumane despots. Yet, it seems strange that you can reproach them for having killed so many, but then when they die, it's something to celebrate.
There's a clear difference between killing genocidal fascist dictators and killing an average person (even if that person does bad things). If I was around then I would have been made very happy by the killing of Mussolini.

red cat

15th April 2010, 02:41

There's a clear difference between killing genocidal fascist dictators and killing an average person (even if that person does bad things). If I was around then I would have been made very happy by the killing of Mussolini.

"Bad things" is too soft for describing what the Indian armed forces do. :lol:

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 02:43

There's a clear difference between killing genocidal fascist dictators and killing an average person (even if that person does bad things). If I was around then I would have been made very happy by the killing of Mussolini.

It's not terrorism when you kill imperialists! :thumbup1:

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 02:46

Calling for peace talks is a part of struggle. It is when the fighters rest and organize and the mass bases spread. Maoists claim to be fighting for peace. So they need to continuously expose the warmongering nature of the bourgeois government to bring the masses more and more into direct contradiction with it. Those who have carefully studied the history of China and warfare in general, would be knowing this very well. Top ranking officers in the Indian army have predicted a Maoist takeover within a few decades at most. Pakistan is pretty aware of the potential of Maoists.

Doubtful. They makes these claims to scare people into supporting hawkish government policies. Pretending to be under siege is also a form of propaganda.

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 02:48

I understand that i wasnt informed enough about the maoist struggle to be involved in this topic.

in return, leave me alone.

thanks.

red cat

15th April 2010, 02:50

Doubtful. They makes these claims to scare people into supporting hawkish government policies. Pretending to be under siege is also a form of propaganda.

True. But the Maoists responded saying that they won't need that much time (up to 2050 ) to complete the new democratic revolution. :lol:

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 02:56

True. But the Maoists responded saying that they won't need that much time (up to 2050 ) to complete the new democratic revolution. :lol:

Only time will tell. Sometimes I wish I could just procure 10,000 AK47's from somewhere and just give it to them. That would probably put victory in sight by 2020!

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 03:01

Only time will tell. Sometimes I wish I could just procure 10,000 AK47's from somewhere and just give it to them. That would probably put victory in sight by 2020!

That would actually be a good idea, as in, to have a way for people to globally help out the Maoists through their revolutionary struggle. Something along the lines like where the PFLP get help globally through the sell of shirts.

red cat

15th April 2010, 03:01

Only time will tell. Sometimes I wish I could just procure 10,000 AK47's from somewhere and just give it to them. That would probably put victory in sight by 2020!

I appreciate your feelings. Perhaps India would be liberated by now if some more people thought like you. :)

The Indian government forces already number 3.7 million without the state forces. Maoists sure have a long way to go before they can liquidate those numbers.

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 03:12

I understand that i wasnt informed enough about the maoist struggle to be involved in this topic.

in return, leave me alone.

thanks.

Doesn't mean you have to leave the thread, Comrade. It's better to show an oppositional stance, rather than no stance at all. Given that, whether you're in opposition or not, we all learn from one another in the long run.

Saorsa

15th April 2010, 03:14

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 03:18

Doesn't mean you have to leave the thread, Comrade. It's better to show an oppositional stance, rather than no stance at all. Given that, whether you're in opposition or not, we all learn from one another in the long run.

well given the option i have, i better leave.

option 1: praise an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

option 2: condemn an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

its a loose- loose situation.

red cat

15th April 2010, 03:20

well given the option i have, i better leave.

option 1: praise an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

option 2: condemn an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

its a loose- loose situation.

How about finding out more about the movement and actually studying the ideology instead of hating it for no logical reasons ?

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 03:21

How about finding out more about the movement and actually studying the ideology instead of hating it for no logical reasons ?

beccause i hate dogma.

red cat

15th April 2010, 03:24

beccause i hate dogma.

How will you decide whether Maoism is dogmatic or not if you don't study it ?

And for your information, dogma and Maoism are diametrically opposed. You would have probably deduced this if you actually followed our debates with other tendencies.

The Vegan Marxist

15th April 2010, 03:31

beccause i hate dogma.

Dogma: A doctrine of beliefs that is proclaimed as true without proof

So you feel there's no proof to what we're saying?

scarletghoul

15th April 2010, 03:36

Anyone who's read Mao will know that he was always speaking out against dogmatism. This critical approach is a huge part of Maoism which has enabled Maoists to adapt to many arenas of struggle and remain the most powerful revolutionary force in the world today

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 03:50

That would actually be a good idea, as in, to have a way for people to globally help out the Maoists through their revolutionary struggle. Something along the lines like where the PFLP get help globally through the sell of shirts.

The Maoists rob banks which if a good tactic and thanks to both the general incompetence of the Indian state and the rampant corruption within government ranks, officials can be bribed if the need arises.

the last donut of the night

15th April 2010, 03:58

It's amazing how Leftists will act when the shit hits the fan. Maybe it's because you guys can't understand the situation in India. The Maoists, the Adivasis, have been exploited in India ever since the Aryan Invasion thousands of years ago. They are the poorest in Indian society and have been treated like scum for hundreds of years. So what's 82 class traitors compared to the countless women, men, and children dead over the years? What's 82 soldiers compared to the countless tears that have been wept as beautiful mountains and livelihoods are sold to international capital? They are nothing.

Have you guys heard of the Kondh of Orissa? They believe the surrounding mountains are their gods. That's right, the mountains near them are considered gods. And they're being converted to bauxite mines so surplus value, cold cash, can be made. I don't know about you guys, but if my gods were being turned into mines, my livelihoods being destroyed, I would do anything to stop that. I would pick up arms and I'm sure I'd have enough rage to kill 82 class traitors to defend my livelihood. I don't think it's really right for us ivory tower First World leftists to stick up our noses at the Maoists and condemn them for killing too much when capitalism is dripping with blood. This is no time for these discussions. This is time for revolution. It's the people or continued assaults on human dignity. Personally, I can't wait for the day when the red flag is hoisted in New Delhi. Can't say the same for you guys.

Saorsa

15th April 2010, 04:00

Oh the irony of danyboy saying he won't 'applaud' the success of a revolutionary movement because he 'hates' it's 'ideology', and then justifying this by saying he hates 'dogma'. :lol:

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 04:06

pranabjyoti

15th April 2010, 08:23

I don't think the Indians want people to send them money, they don't want to be seen as a foreign-funded insurgent group. If they wanted that kind of solidarity I'm sure my party would be running a campaign to help them as well as our campaign for the PFLP. There's been occasional communication between them and groups overseas like ours, and from what I understand they've made it clear they don't want foreigners to send them money.
I think they need arms much more than money. Because, even if they have money, it's hard for them to buy arms directly from open market. I know well that arms and ammunition are in short supply to them.

red cat

15th April 2010, 09:21

I think they need arms much more than money. Because, even if they have money, it's hard for them to buy arms directly from open market. I know well that arms and ammunition are in short supply to them.

I will side with Alastair here. All Maoists know how to solve the arms problem very well. What they need more is open international solidarity, so that some effective opposition to the coming imperialist invasion of India can be formed.

danyboy27

15th April 2010, 11:37

How will you decide whether Maoism is dogmatic or not if you don't study it ?

And for your information, dogma and Maoism are diametrically opposed. You would have probably deduced this if you actually followed our debates with other tendencies.

i read the little red book and i found the thing extremely patronizing ,like mao knew everything . i disagree with the whole peasant revolution thing beccause ithink the whole thing should be done together rather tan being one sided.

Sir Comradical

15th April 2010, 11:45

i read the little red book and i found the thing extremely patronizing ,like mao knew everything . i disagree with the whole peasant revolution thing beccause ithink the whole thing should be done together rather tan being one sided.

Well, I'd hate to read a book written by a man who thought he knew nothing.

Spawn of Stalin

15th April 2010, 11:57

well given the option i have, i better leave.

option 1: praise an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

option 2: condemn an action made by a movement i dont know who fallow an ideology i hate.

its a loose- loose situation.

Option 3: Support the Maoists regardless of which ideology they follow, because at the end of the day, action is action, it doesn't matter whether you do it under the banner of Mao, Stalin, Trotsky, Richard Nixon, as long as the actions are progressive, this is all that matters, and it would take a very bold human being to seriously state that the Maoists' actions are not progressive, reactionary. I think the fact that you openly admit to not knowing or understanding the Naxal movement proves a very big point in itself, you can not possibly hope to achieve anything in a debate regarding Indian Maoists, a group which you do not understand and whose ideology you are firmly opposed to.

red cat

15th April 2010, 12:57

i read the little red book and i found the thing extremely patronizing ,like mao knew everything . i disagree with the whole peasant revolution thing beccause ithink the whole thing should be done together rather tan being one sided.

If you want to discuss then you can start a separate thread and post the relevant quotes there with your reasons for opposing them.