Wednesday 22 June 2011
अगर ईमानदार होना पाप है, तो ये पाप सिर-आँखों पर by Maya Shankar Jha on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 9:44am डॉ. माया शंकर झा और भारत भारती समाज अन्ना हजारे के साथ हैं , उनके विचार से सहमत हैं I सत्य वचन !! बुजदिली !! कायरता !! और सत्य से पलायन !! इस देश के पिछडेपन का कारण है। कूंठित अमानसिकता बदहाली का मूल है ----इस मे संशय का कोई अवकाश नहीं है I जब हम एकजुट होकर किसी अच्छे काम में योगदान नहीं कर सकते तो कम से कम शांत रहे. देश भक्त वो ही कहलायेंगे जो निःस्वार्थ देश की सेवा में अपना योगदान देंगे. जो कुछ नहीं कर सकते वो मजबूर कहलायेंगे. मगर जो अच्छा काम करने वालो की आलोचना करेंगे वो देश के गद्दार ही कहे जा सकते हैं. वर्तमान समय में अन्ना जी और बाबा रामदेव ही ऐसे व्यक्ति हैं जो देश को नयी दिशा देने में निःस्वार्थ कार्यरत हैं वो भी अभी से नहीं विगत कई वर्षो से. उनकी भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई व्यकितगत नहीं है जो हम उनका साथ न दें. वो हमारी भी जिम्मेदारी है. देश की बुराई करना आसान है मगर देश से बुराई दूर करना बहुत ही मुश्किल. जो मुश्किल काम करता है अपनी जान की बाज़ी तक लगा के पूरे देश के सुख और सम्पन्नता के लिए अनशन करता है भूखा रहता है वो ही सबसे सच्चा देश भक्त है आज के समय में. और जो ऐसे देश भक्तों की आलोचना करें उन्हें देशद्रोही ही कहा जाएगा. क्योंकि keyboard warrior बने रहना आसान है मगर मैदान में आकर अत्याचार के खिलाफ खड़े होना अत्यंत दुष्कर है. ये so called आलोचक देश के लिए कितने दिन तक भूखे रह सकते हैं ? देश की भलाई के लिए क्या किया किसी ने आज तक ? बस ऐसे ही किसी को भी मान लें - वो देश भक्त है ? कभी नहीं i!! ..... हम सभी खुश रहना चाहते हैं मगर अक्सर हम ही यह चाहत भूल जाते हैं और ढेरो गम खुद ही पाल लेते हैं। कीजिए अपने आप से वादा कि खुश रहेंगे और दूसरों को भी खुशियाँ बाँटेंगे। आपाधापी के युग में मनुष्य सुबह से शाम तक अवसाद में रहता है। इस अवसाद के कारण शारीरिक-मानसिक बीमारियाँ लगी रहती हैं। फिर आज मनुष्य का अहं भी बहुत बढ़ गया है, उसकी आवश्यकताएँ बढ़ गई हैं। जब आवश्यकताएँ पूर्ण नहीं होतीं या अहं को चोट लगती है तो उसे बहुत क्रोध आता है। सत्य वचन !! बुजदिली !! कायरता !! और सत्य से पलायन !! इस देश के पिछडेपन का कारण है। करुणा के भाव के कारण ही मनुष्य को दूसरे का दर्द गहराई से समझ में आता है और वह उसे दूर करने की कोशिश करता है। इसके बदले कितना कष्ट मिलेगा, वह इसकी चिंता नहीं करता। दरअसल दूसरे के कष्ट दूर कर वह अनोखी तृप्ति का अनुभव करता है। उसका सोच होता है कि परोपकार ही सबसे बड़ा धर्म है। यह नश्वर मानव-शरीर किसी के काम आए इससे बड़ा परोपकार क्या हो सकता है। लोकपाल बिल पर बाबा रामदेव और अन्ना हजारे के बीच टकराव भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ चल रही मुहिम की लय बिगाड़ सकता है... यदि इस मुद्दे पर सफलता हासिल करनी है तो व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थों को तो किनारे रखना ही होगा... जब बात देशहित की हो रही हो तो श्रेय लेने की होड़ नहीं मचनी चाहिए...अच्छे विचारों में सदैव सकारात्मक संभावनाएं छिपी होती हैं। जनता की सरकार है प्यारे जनता ही लाचार है प्यारे नेताओं की काली करनी देश का बंटाधार है प्यारे लोकतन्त्र से लोक नदारद तंत्र की जय-जयकार है प्यारे कैसे देश बढ़ेगा आगे भारी भ्रष्टाचार है प्यारे भूख, गरीबी, महंगाई पर होता रोज विचार है प्यारे बढ़ती जाती हैं ये नित दिन सुरसा सा विस्तार है प्यारे आश्वासन की मधुर चासनी दिखा रहे दिन में ही तारे रामराज का स्वप्न मनोरम सबका बेड़ा पार है प्यारे रोजगार की नहीं गारंटी जीवन लगता भार है प्यारे रोटी, कपड़ा और मकान पर अपना कब अधिकार है प्यारे कोठी, बंगला, कार है फिर भी थोड़े की दरकार है प्यारे लूटो जितना लूट सको तुम यही तो शिष्टाचार है प्यारे धर्मगुरु संदेश बाँचते धर्म बना बाज़ार है प्यारे धर्मक्षेत्र में कुकर्मों की महिमा अपरंपार है प्यारे सत्य, अहिंसा, लोकभावना कितना उच्च विचार है प्यारे मगर इन्हीं की आड़ में धंधा कैसा अत्याचार है प्यारे बढ़ती जाती भूख ‘अर्थ’ की भूखों की भरमार है प्यारे कौन सकेगा पाट खाई यह ईश्वर भी लाचार है प्यारे अस्मत लुटती अबलाओं की मस्ती का ब्यापार है प्यारे पैसा फेंक तमाशा देखो यही जगत व्यवहार है I यह संसार क्या हैं ? मनुष्य उत्पन्न होता हैं, मरता हैं, फिर उत्पन्न होता हैं, फिर मरता हैं. जब से यह संसार हैं यह चक्र चल ही रहा हैं , बहुत दीर्घकालीन रोग हैं यह. इस बिमारी की एकमात्र चिकित्सा हैं ,ठीक विचार या सुविचार. आप कहेगे की केवल विचारों से यह सब कैसे ठीक हो सकता हैं ?? परन्तु सच्चाई यह हैं की विचार की शक्ति बहुत महान हैं. विचार ठीक हैं तो मनुष्य ठीक मार्ग पर , सुपथ पर , ठीक लक्ष्य की और चलता हैं. विचार शक्ति से मनुष्य , समाज और देश -- सब सफलता की और बढ़ते हैं. विचार ही गलत हो जाए तो सब विनाश और दुःख की और बढ़ने लगते हैं. विचार की शक्ति से मनुष्य बदल सकते हैं जातियां बदल सकती हैं देश बदल सकते हैं. उच्च विचार क्षमता मनुष्य को उच्च बना देती हैं. इस समूह पर हमें देश, धर्म , समाज , राजनीति, अशिक्षा, गरीबी, अज्ञानता, कुपोषण , अपराध, वर्तमान आर्थिक स्थिति इस सब समस्याओं पर मिलजुलकर विचार विमर्श करना हैं. बहुत छोटे स्तर पर ही क्यों ना हो इन समस्याओं को कम करने के लिए एक -दुसरे को विचारों की शक्ति प्रदान करनी हैं. किसी भी राष्ट्र के लिए तीन वस्तुए आवश्यक हैं. ये तीन वस्तुए हो तो राष्ट्र शक्तिशाली बनता हैं और आगे बढ़ता हैं. ये तीन वस्तुएं हैं -- बुद्धिबल, बाहुबल और धनबल. आप सभी विद्वान हैं और आपको ईश्वर ने बुद्धिबल प्रचुर मात्रा में दिया हैं और एक समूह पर जोड़कर उस बुद्धिबल को और भी तेज करने का अवसर दिया हैं. तो आइये हम वेदों में दोहराई जाने वाली प्रार्थना फिर एक बार दोहराए और सुविचारों का आदान-प्रदान शुरू करे. तन्मे मतः शिवसंकल्पमस्तु !!! हे भगवान् !! मेरे मन को शिव संकल्प वाला, उच्च विचारों वाला बना दो ! मैं साहित्य की एक अदना किन्तु सचेत और जागरूख पाठक हूँ. जब मुझे किसी लेखक की रचना पर खरी-खरी प्रसंशा करने का अधिकार हे तो उसके विचलन और झोल पर उंगली रखने का अधिकार भी तो होना चाहिए ना? लेखकीय स्वतंत्रता की बात तो सभी करते हैं, क्या पाठकीय स्वतंत्रता भी नहीं होनी चाहिए? क्या पाठक बस आरती उतरता रहे? या विरुदावली गाये? ऐसा क्यों हो कि मैं तारीफ करूँ तो बांचें खिल जाये और झोल पर उंगली रखु तो बोखला जाये. साहित्यकार (लेखक और आलोचक) तो स्वाभाव से ही सहिष्णु और संवेदनशील होते हैं, फिर थोड़ी सी खरी-खरी कहने से ही बोखला क्यों जाते हैं? क्या प्रशस्ति सुनने के आदि हो गए हैं, अपने अहंकार के संकुचित दायरे में गाफिल? या फिर फतवेबाज लेखक- कि "खबरदार जो मेरे लिखे पर कोई सवाल उठाया, फेसबुक की दुनिया से ही उठा देंगे!” मैं ऐसI नहीं हू जो जहर को गुड में मिलाकर/लपेटकर देने का पाप करू! जहर देना हे तो जहर कि तरह ही दिया जाना चाहिए . मुझे चापलूसी नहीं आती! ना ही मुझे किसी कॉलेज या विश्वविध्यालय में अध्यापक बनना हे, ना ही बडI लेखक बनना हे. पाठक हूँ बस पाठक ही बने रहना चाहतI हूँ. आलोचक बनने का भी कोई मंसूबा नहीं पाला है! अगर ईमानदार होना पाप है, तो ये पाप सिर-आँखों पर! सिविल सोसाइटी के मायने तो सिर्फ आठ -दस लोगों तक सिमट कर रह गए हैं , और उनके अंतर्विरोध भी देर - सवेर पूरी तरह से उजागर हो जायेंगे . उनके स्वार्थ , महत्त्वाकांक्षा आदि भी पूरी तरह से उजागर हो जायेंगे I "हिम्मत से सच कहो तो बुरा मानते हैं लोग रो रो के बात करने की आदत सीखते हैं लोग I कैसे जियेंगे इस नर-पिसांच के साथ सीधे-सादे लोग सच कहने से सूली पर चढ़ा दिए जाते हैं लोग I" डॉ. माया शंकर झा , कोलकाता
Thursday 16 June 2011
जनता से भिड़े नहीं, जनता से जुड़े सरकार
प्रणब मुखर्जी की इस बात से मैं पूरी तरह सहमत हूं कि कानून बनाने का काम संसद का है। संसद के इस अधिकार को चुनौती देना सर्वथा अलोकतांत्रिक है, लेकिन मूल प्रश्न यह है कि इस मर्यादा को भंग किसने किया? पहल किसने की? क्या अन्ना हजारे के लोगों ने कहा था कि लोकपाल विधेयक पर विचार करने के लिए संयुक्त समिति बनाई जाए? क्या यह पहल सरकार की तरफ से नहीं हुई थी? सरकार को यह अधिकार किसने दिया कि वह संसद की मर्यादा का उल्लंघन करे?
क्या संसद ने सर्वसम्मति से प्रस्ताव पारित करके सरकार से अनुरोध किया था कि वह ऐसी कमेटी बनाए? सरकार के दो-चार मंत्रियों (और शायद प्रधानमंत्री ने भी) उस समय जनाक्रोश को ठंडा करने के लिए जो ठीक समझा, वह कर दिया। उन्होंने इस कमेटी में न तो अपने गठबंधन के अन्य दलों को और न ही विपक्षी दलों को कोई प्रतिनिधित्व दिया। यानी संसद की सरासर अवहेलना हुई। यदि इस कमेटी में सभी दलों का प्रतिनिधित्व होता तो कुछ हद तक यह माना जाता कि संसद के सम्मान की रक्षा हुई। जहां तक लोकपाल आंदोलन का सवाल है, उसके नेताओं से भी गलती हो गई। सरकार के साथ कमेटी बनाने की जरूरत क्या थी? उन्होंने वैकल्पिक विधेयक बनाकर दे दिया था। सरकार को उसमें से जितना मानना होता, मानती।
शेष प्रावधानों के लिए वह सरकार और सांसदों को समझाती, उन पर दबाव डालती, जनमत तैयार करती, लेकिन वह भी सरकारी जाल में फंस गई। मैंने पहले ही दिन लिखा था कि यह कमेटी फेल हो जाएगी, क्योंकि सरकारी विधेयक नख-दंतहीन है और जनलोकपाल विधेयक के चेहरे पर दांत ही दांत हैं। यदि सरकार डर जाए और मानो कि वह जनलोकपाल विधेयक को शब्दश: मान ले तो भी क्या होगा? उसे सरकार नहीं, संसद पास करेगी। कांग्रेस पार्टी क्या उसे अकेले दम पास कर सकती है? क्या उसके पास स्पष्ट बहुमत है? संयुक्त कमेटी में तो सिर्फ कांग्रेसी मंत्री ही हैं न! क्या कांग्रेस के सहमत हो जाने पर सारे दल भी सहमत हो जाएंगे। यह ऐसा विधेयक है, जिसे कम से कम दो-तिहाई बहुमत से पास किया जाना चाहिए।
इस समय देश के विपक्षी दलों ने भी जनलोकपाल का स्पष्ट समर्थन नहीं किया है। वे कांग्रेस की मुसीबत बढ़ा रहे हैं। वे कह रहे हैं, पहले आप अन्ना के पहलवानों से कुश्ती लड़कर दिखाओ, फिर हम देखेंगे। दूसरे शब्दों में, सारे दल डरे हुए हैं। उन्हें पता है कि कांग्रेस के दिन पूरे हो गए हैं। अब हमें सत्ता में आना है। हम अपनी गर्दन लोकपाल से क्यों नपवाएंगे? पूरे कुएं में ही भांग पड़ी हुई है।
ऐसी स्थिति में यदि अन्ना दुबारा अनशन करेंगे और जैसा कि रामदेव ने कहा है कि वे अपना भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी आंदोलन दोगुने जोश-खरोश के साथ चलाएंगे तो आप कल्पना कर सकते हैं कि देश का माहौल कैसा हो जाएगा? उसके सामने आपातकाल का आंदोलन तो बच्चा-सा मालूम पड़ेगा। सरकार यदि आपातकाल थोप देगी तो भी उससे क्या फर्क पड़ेगा? यह ठीक है कि इस जनाक्रोश का नेतृत्व जेपी या लोहिया जैसा कोई व्यक्ति नहीं कर रहा है, लेकिन रामदेव और अरविंद केजरीवाल जैसे युवा लोगों ने आज पूरे देश में जो हवा बना दी है, उसका सामना करने की क्षमता वर्तमान सरकार में बिल्कुल भी नहीं है।
यदि वह क्षमता जरा भी होती तो न तो वह लोकपाल पर औपचारिक संयुक्त कमेटी बनाती और न ही रामलीला मैदान के अहिंसक सत्याग्रहियों पर मध्यरात्रि में हमला बोलती। इन युवा आंदोलनकारियों के साथ छल-कपट या चालाकी करने के बजाय वह यदि ईमानदारी और धैर्य का परिचय देती तो अपनी डूबती नाव को बचा लेती। उसे बच निकलने का रास्ता मिल जाता।
लेकिन लगता है सरकार इतनी घबरा गई है कि वह एक के बाद एक अपने रास्ते बंद करती चली जा रही है। प्रणब मुखर्जी जन आंदोलनों को सिविल सोसायटी की तानाशाही कह रहे हैं। उनका अभिप्राय यह है कि आपने पांच साल के लिए सांसद चुन लिए हैं। वे ही आपका भला-बुरा सोचेंगे और कानून बनाएंगे। आप पांच साल तक चादर ओढ़कर सो जाइए। आपको अपना मुंह और आंख खोलने की जरूरत नहीं है। यदि आप आंदोलन करते हैं तो यह संसदीय लोकतंत्र की अवहेलना है। दिव्य है आपका तर्क! सांसदगण और संसद कौन हैं? ये जनता के सेवक हैं या मालिक हैं? मालिक ने सेवक को काम पर लगा दिया तो क्या सेवक को निर्देश देने का उसका अधिकार भी खत्म हो जाता है? जनसेवकों की ऐसी सीनाजोरी तो किसी संसदीय लोकतंत्र में देखी नहीं जाती।
कांग्रेस को कुल 11 करोड़ 80 लाख वोट मिले हैं, लेकिन आज लगभग 100 करोड़ लोगों की राय क्या है, क्या यह कांग्रेस को पता नहीं चल रहा है? भ्रष्टाचार को खत्म करने के साथ अब जनमतसंग्रह (रेफरेंडम) और वापसी (रिकॉल) की मांग भी मजबूत होती चली जा रही हैं। डॉ लोहिया ने क्या खूब कहा था कि जिंदा कौमें पांच साल इंतजार नहीं करतीं। प्रणब दा के कई तर्क उन पर ही पलटवार करते हैं। वे कहते हैं कि आंदोलनकारियों के पांचों प्रतिनिधि नामजद हैं। वे जनता द्वारा चुने हुए नहीं हैं। तो क्या भारत के प्रधानमंत्री जनता द्वारा चुने हुए हैं? वे तो लोकसभा के किसी एक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से भी आज तक नहीं चुने गए।
यदि ये प्रतिनिधि चुने हुए नहीं हैं तो आप इनसे बात क्यों कर रहे हैं? इनसे चल रही बात का हूबहू प्रसारण आप क्यों नहीं करना चाहते? इसे आप सर्कस कहते हैं तो संसद का सजीव प्रसारण क्या है? ऐसा कहने से क्या संसदीय लोकतंत्र की गरिमा बढ़ती है? देश के लिए यह बहुत नाजुक समय है। यह इसलिए और नाजुक हो गया है कि सत्तापक्ष और आंदोलनकारियों, दोनों के पास बड़े नेताओं का अभाव है। लेकिन प्रणब मुखर्जी जैसे अनुभवी सत्तासेवी चाहें तो बहुत रचनात्मक भूमिका निभा सकते हैं।
............... डॉ. माया शंकर झा
Tuesday 31 May 2011
समान शक्ति और संवैधानिक अधिकार.
पिछड़े और अति पिछड़े समाज का विभाजन आज की आवश्यकता बन गयी है.
अति- पिछड़े समाज की स्थिति पिछले 20 वर्ष के आरक्षण के बाद भी नहीं सुधरी है बल्कि उनकी स्थिति दलित जाति के समान या कही -2 उनसे बदतर हो गयी है. अब प्रश्न यह है की यदि उनकी स्थिति दलित से बदतर हो गयी है तो उन्हें भी उसी प्रकार की संवैधानिक सुरक्षा, आरक्षण, और सरकारी मदद मिले. संवैधानिक सुरक्षा से तात्पर्य है OBC COMMISSION को भी SC और ST COMMISSION के समान शक्ति और संवैधानिक अधिकार.
अति- पिछड़े समाज को शैक्षिक संस्थानों और नौकरियो में आरक्षण उनकी जनसँख्या के आधार पर मिले. और सरकारी मदद से तात्पर्य प्रत्येक विद्यार्थी (SC.ST. OBC) को केन्द्रीय, राज्य स्तरीय वजीफा जैसे राजीव गाँधी, मौलाना अबुल कलाम आजाद स्कालरशिप मिले. अब सबसे पहले प्रश्न यह है की उनकी जाति कैसे निर्धारित किया जाय ?इसके लिए मेरे अनुसार SC समुदाय के जातियों के सामाजिक और शैक्षणिक स्थिति का विश्लेषण करके उसी मानदंड पर पिछड़ी जातियों को भी मापा जाय और जिन-२ पिछड़ी जातियों की स्थिति उनके समान या उनसे बदतर हो तो उन्हें अति- पिछड़े समुदाय में रक्खा जाय.
अब दूसरा प्रश्न है उनके लिए आरक्षण कैसे निर्धारित किया जाय? इसके लिए आनुपातिक तरीका अपनाया जाय. अब जैसे पिछडो की संख्या कुल जनसँख्या की 60 % हो और उसमे 20 % अति पिछड़े हो तो कुल पिछड़े और अति पिछड़े के बीच में (60.20) 3;1 का अनुपात होगा तो अति पिछडो के लिए आरक्षण जनसँख्या के आधार पर २० % और बचे हुए पिछड़ी जातियों के लिए आरक्षण 18 % (27-27.3=27-9=18) निर्धारित कर दिया जाय. इस प्रकार कुल आरक्षण की सीमा (23+20+18= 61% ).
तमिलनाडु राज्य के माडल के आधार पर हर राज्य और केंद्र में आरक्षण की सीमा बढ़ाना चाहिए जब तक सभी जातियों का प्रतिनिधित्व न हो जाय. जाति जनगणना में न केवल पिछड़े (OBC.SC.ST), बल्कि सभी जातियों के शैक्षिक, सामजिक और आर्थिक ब्यौरा होने से इसका अनुमान लगाना मुस्किल नही है.
कुछ राज्यों में OBC की कुछ जातियों को निकालकर सामान्य श्रेणी में करने की बात चल रही है मेरे अनुसार OBC की कोई जाति अभी इस स्थिति में नहीं है परन्तु यदि सरकार इसे करना जरुरी समझती है तो सामान्य श्रेणी के जातियों की सामाजिक स्थिति का विश्लेषण करके OBC की जो भी जाति की स्थिति वैसी मिले उसे सामान्य श्रेणी में रखा जाय यदपि सामान्य श्रेणी के सभी जातियों की सामाजिक स्थिति भी एक सामान नहीं है. ......DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
अति- पिछड़े समाज की स्थिति पिछले 20 वर्ष के आरक्षण के बाद भी नहीं सुधरी है बल्कि उनकी स्थिति दलित जाति के समान या कही -2 उनसे बदतर हो गयी है. अब प्रश्न यह है की यदि उनकी स्थिति दलित से बदतर हो गयी है तो उन्हें भी उसी प्रकार की संवैधानिक सुरक्षा, आरक्षण, और सरकारी मदद मिले. संवैधानिक सुरक्षा से तात्पर्य है OBC COMMISSION को भी SC और ST COMMISSION के समान शक्ति और संवैधानिक अधिकार.
अति- पिछड़े समाज को शैक्षिक संस्थानों और नौकरियो में आरक्षण उनकी जनसँख्या के आधार पर मिले. और सरकारी मदद से तात्पर्य प्रत्येक विद्यार्थी (SC.ST. OBC) को केन्द्रीय, राज्य स्तरीय वजीफा जैसे राजीव गाँधी, मौलाना अबुल कलाम आजाद स्कालरशिप मिले. अब सबसे पहले प्रश्न यह है की उनकी जाति कैसे निर्धारित किया जाय ?इसके लिए मेरे अनुसार SC समुदाय के जातियों के सामाजिक और शैक्षणिक स्थिति का विश्लेषण करके उसी मानदंड पर पिछड़ी जातियों को भी मापा जाय और जिन-२ पिछड़ी जातियों की स्थिति उनके समान या उनसे बदतर हो तो उन्हें अति- पिछड़े समुदाय में रक्खा जाय.
अब दूसरा प्रश्न है उनके लिए आरक्षण कैसे निर्धारित किया जाय? इसके लिए आनुपातिक तरीका अपनाया जाय. अब जैसे पिछडो की संख्या कुल जनसँख्या की 60 % हो और उसमे 20 % अति पिछड़े हो तो कुल पिछड़े और अति पिछड़े के बीच में (60.20) 3;1 का अनुपात होगा तो अति पिछडो के लिए आरक्षण जनसँख्या के आधार पर २० % और बचे हुए पिछड़ी जातियों के लिए आरक्षण 18 % (27-27.3=27-9=18) निर्धारित कर दिया जाय. इस प्रकार कुल आरक्षण की सीमा (23+20+18= 61% ).
तमिलनाडु राज्य के माडल के आधार पर हर राज्य और केंद्र में आरक्षण की सीमा बढ़ाना चाहिए जब तक सभी जातियों का प्रतिनिधित्व न हो जाय. जाति जनगणना में न केवल पिछड़े (OBC.SC.ST), बल्कि सभी जातियों के शैक्षिक, सामजिक और आर्थिक ब्यौरा होने से इसका अनुमान लगाना मुस्किल नही है.
कुछ राज्यों में OBC की कुछ जातियों को निकालकर सामान्य श्रेणी में करने की बात चल रही है मेरे अनुसार OBC की कोई जाति अभी इस स्थिति में नहीं है परन्तु यदि सरकार इसे करना जरुरी समझती है तो सामान्य श्रेणी के जातियों की सामाजिक स्थिति का विश्लेषण करके OBC की जो भी जाति की स्थिति वैसी मिले उसे सामान्य श्रेणी में रखा जाय यदपि सामान्य श्रेणी के सभी जातियों की सामाजिक स्थिति भी एक सामान नहीं है. ......DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
Thursday 26 May 2011
Left Front has failed to govern West Bengal BECAUSE They did not maintain Marxism in the society :
Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous.
KOLKATA: The Left Front (LF) government had failed to govern the West Bengal and now it was time for the new alliance of Trinamool Congress and Congress to run the government.
I think that if the Congress and Trinamool Congress combined work together to power then the priority would be to give justice to the people, as law and order had collapsed in West Bengal. According to me in education sector too much Cadering - Bengal was lagging behind small states.
I think that the industrial base needed to be revamped in Bengal as small industries were closed and even tea industry was suffering in the state.
All Bengali and Non-Bengali youths go out of the state in search of jobs and minorities have been ignored too. The central funds were misused and not properly utilized, I think that "Several central schemes were not been implemented properly in Bengal by the LF government."
The state government has failed to implement National Rural Health Mission scheme along with NREGA scheme and the funds provided by the UPA government had not been used by the LF government.
"It is clear that for this failure, the LF government must go. Bengal needs change," I think that Bengal's CPI (M) had failed to deliver peace and development to the people.
Left Front has failed to govern West Bengal BECAUSE They did not maintain Marxism in the society because of the follows:
The “Communist Manifesto” stated that all men were born free but that society had got to such a state that the majority were in chains. Engels referred to the book as being the “very way of life”.
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.
Marxism made people think about the society they lived in. Ironically, Marxism produced many ideological offshoots – those who agreed with eight of his ideas but criticised two, for example, or supported five but not the other five. As a result of this, Marxism as an entity came under strain.
The main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces and that he wrapped a great deal of his beliefs in an economic shell at the expense of non-economic issues. Those who criticised Marx said that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions.
Another criticism of Marx was that what he wrote was very vague and open to interpretation, especially what would happen after a proletariat revolution.
Marxism was a difficult belief to apply in Russia as the nation was primarily an agricultural nation and Marx had based his beliefs on an industrial society such as Germany or Britain. The conservatism, lack of any education and superstition that existed in the rural areas of Russia meant that Marx was less than enthusiastically welcomed – even with his promise of land reform. Marx had based a great deal of his support on the industrial workers – and it needed people in Russia to organise these people. Some tried to organise trade unions that were easily infiltrated by the police. It needed Lenin to make the industrial workers a more dynamic group capable of pushing through a revolution.
In 1848, Western Europe was swept by a wave of revolutions. Marx wanted to use this chaos to his advantage and used a newspaper, the ‘Neue Rheinische Zeitung’ to launch his ten points:
1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.
2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid.
The less you earned, the less you paid.
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.
5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.
6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.
7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into
cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.
8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.
9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.
The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that claim to be Marxist. This very success, however, has meant that the original ideas of Marx have often been modified and his meanings adapted to a great variety of political circumstances. In addition, the fact that Marx delayed publication of many of his writings meant that is been only recently that scholars had the opportunity to appreciate Marx's intellectual stature.
On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep -- but for ever.
An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.
Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts (1844), the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and, in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in organisations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men's Association -- this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else.
And, consequently, Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers -- from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America -- and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy.
His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.
Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous. His thought is not the comprehensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical materialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually tentative and open-ended. There was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. Many of his expectations about the future course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture.
Dr. Maya Shankar Jha said that the industrial base needed to be revamped in Bengal as small industries were closed and even tea industry was suffering in the state.
Bengali youth go out of the state in search of jobs and minorities have been ignored too. The central funds were misused and not properly utilized, he said. "Several central schemes were not been implemented properly in Bengal by the LF government."
The state government has failed to implement National Rural Health Mission scheme along with NREGA scheme and the funds provided by the UPA government had not been used by the LF government.So, in all means Left Front has failed to govern West Bengal BECAUSE They did not maintain Marxism in the society. They always makes groupism to victimized real cadres like me and Some Nath Babu etc. Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous but, LEFT FRONT's contribution to our understanding of society has been detrimental and ungenerous. O ! MY MARX ! COME SOON ! BLESS THIS LADY TO HER VIEWS OF MARXISM ! TO WORK WITH MARXISM ! TO FEEL PAIN OF MARXISM !
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
KOLKATA
KOLKATA: The Left Front (LF) government had failed to govern the West Bengal and now it was time for the new alliance of Trinamool Congress and Congress to run the government.
I think that if the Congress and Trinamool Congress combined work together to power then the priority would be to give justice to the people, as law and order had collapsed in West Bengal. According to me in education sector too much Cadering - Bengal was lagging behind small states.
I think that the industrial base needed to be revamped in Bengal as small industries were closed and even tea industry was suffering in the state.
All Bengali and Non-Bengali youths go out of the state in search of jobs and minorities have been ignored too. The central funds were misused and not properly utilized, I think that "Several central schemes were not been implemented properly in Bengal by the LF government."
The state government has failed to implement National Rural Health Mission scheme along with NREGA scheme and the funds provided by the UPA government had not been used by the LF government.
"It is clear that for this failure, the LF government must go. Bengal needs change," I think that Bengal's CPI (M) had failed to deliver peace and development to the people.
Left Front has failed to govern West Bengal BECAUSE They did not maintain Marxism in the society because of the follows:
The “Communist Manifesto” stated that all men were born free but that society had got to such a state that the majority were in chains. Engels referred to the book as being the “very way of life”.
The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.
Marxism made people think about the society they lived in. Ironically, Marxism produced many ideological offshoots – those who agreed with eight of his ideas but criticised two, for example, or supported five but not the other five. As a result of this, Marxism as an entity came under strain.
The main criticism of Marx was that he undervalued non-economic forces and that he wrapped a great deal of his beliefs in an economic shell at the expense of non-economic issues. Those who criticised Marx said that he failed to take into account patterns of culture and a country’s traditions.
Another criticism of Marx was that what he wrote was very vague and open to interpretation, especially what would happen after a proletariat revolution.
Marxism was a difficult belief to apply in Russia as the nation was primarily an agricultural nation and Marx had based his beliefs on an industrial society such as Germany or Britain. The conservatism, lack of any education and superstition that existed in the rural areas of Russia meant that Marx was less than enthusiastically welcomed – even with his promise of land reform. Marx had based a great deal of his support on the industrial workers – and it needed people in Russia to organise these people. Some tried to organise trade unions that were easily infiltrated by the police. It needed Lenin to make the industrial workers a more dynamic group capable of pushing through a revolution.
In 1848, Western Europe was swept by a wave of revolutions. Marx wanted to use this chaos to his advantage and used a newspaper, the ‘Neue Rheinische Zeitung’ to launch his ten points:
1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.
2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid.
The less you earned, the less you paid.
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.
5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.
6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.
7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into
cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.
8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.
9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.
The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that claim to be Marxist. This very success, however, has meant that the original ideas of Marx have often been modified and his meanings adapted to a great variety of political circumstances. In addition, the fact that Marx delayed publication of many of his writings meant that is been only recently that scholars had the opportunity to appreciate Marx's intellectual stature.
On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep -- but for ever.
An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.
But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.
Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.
Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts (1844), the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and, in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in organisations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men's Association -- this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else.
And, consequently, Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers -- from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America -- and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy.
His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.
Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous. His thought is not the comprehensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical materialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually tentative and open-ended. There was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. Many of his expectations about the future course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture.
Dr. Maya Shankar Jha said that the industrial base needed to be revamped in Bengal as small industries were closed and even tea industry was suffering in the state.
Bengali youth go out of the state in search of jobs and minorities have been ignored too. The central funds were misused and not properly utilized, he said. "Several central schemes were not been implemented properly in Bengal by the LF government."
The state government has failed to implement National Rural Health Mission scheme along with NREGA scheme and the funds provided by the UPA government had not been used by the LF government.So, in all means Left Front has failed to govern West Bengal BECAUSE They did not maintain Marxism in the society. They always makes groupism to victimized real cadres like me and Some Nath Babu etc. Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous but, LEFT FRONT's contribution to our understanding of society has been detrimental and ungenerous. O ! MY MARX ! COME SOON ! BLESS THIS LADY TO HER VIEWS OF MARXISM ! TO WORK WITH MARXISM ! TO FEEL PAIN OF MARXISM !
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
KOLKATA
Sunday 15 May 2011
“A” TO “Z” OF LIFE EXPLAINED
“A” TO “Z” OF LIFE
EXPLAINED
A…Life is an Adventure, dare it.
B...Life is an Beauty, Worship it.
C…..Life is a Challenge, Meet it.
D……Life is a Dream, Realize it.
E..Life is an Endurance, Cope it.
F….Life is a Fragrance, Smell it.
G………..Life is a Game, Play it.
H…….Life is a Heaven, Make it.
I…...Life is an Initiative, Take it.
J...Life is a Journey, Complete it.
K……..Life is Kerosene, Burn it.
L………….Life is Love, Enjoy it.
M….Life is a Mystery, Unfold it.
N………..Life is a Name, Find it.
O...Life is Opportunity, Catch it.
P……Life is a Promise, Fulfill it.
Q…Life is a Question, Answer it.
R………Life is a Reality, Face it.
S………….Life is a Song, Sing it.
T………...Life is Time, Utilize it.
U……. Life is an Urge, Satisfy it.
V……Life is a Voice, Listen to it.
W….Life is a Wealth, Acquire it.
X……………..Life is X? Solve it.
Y..Life is a Yearning, Go after it.
Z……….Life is Zenith, Attain it.
….DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
KOLKATA
EXPLAINED
A…Life is an Adventure, dare it.
B...Life is an Beauty, Worship it.
C…..Life is a Challenge, Meet it.
D……Life is a Dream, Realize it.
E..Life is an Endurance, Cope it.
F….Life is a Fragrance, Smell it.
G………..Life is a Game, Play it.
H…….Life is a Heaven, Make it.
I…...Life is an Initiative, Take it.
J...Life is a Journey, Complete it.
K……..Life is Kerosene, Burn it.
L………….Life is Love, Enjoy it.
M….Life is a Mystery, Unfold it.
N………..Life is a Name, Find it.
O...Life is Opportunity, Catch it.
P……Life is a Promise, Fulfill it.
Q…Life is a Question, Answer it.
R………Life is a Reality, Face it.
S………….Life is a Song, Sing it.
T………...Life is Time, Utilize it.
U……. Life is an Urge, Satisfy it.
V……Life is a Voice, Listen to it.
W….Life is a Wealth, Acquire it.
X……………..Life is X? Solve it.
Y..Life is a Yearning, Go after it.
Z……….Life is Zenith, Attain it.
….DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
KOLKATA
The CPM feels “beleaguered and besieged” in Bengal
Prakash Karat hints at Communists losing West Bengal
The CPM feels “beleaguered and besieged” in Bengal and expects to do “very badly” in the next round of Assembly elections.
This harsh assessment has been made by none less than party general secretary Prakash Karat, according to renowned British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.
In an interview in the latest (Jan.-Feb. 2010) issue of the prestigious Left journal New Left Review, Hobsbawm discusses the changes that have taken place across the world in the first decade of the 21st century.
Among the developments that have surprised him since he wrote his tome Age of Extremes on the 20th century, Hobsbawm lists the “collapse of the CPI(M) in West Bengal which I really wouldn’t have expected”.
He goes on to say: “Prakash Karat, the CPI(M) general secretary, recently told me that in West Bengal, they felt themselves beleaguered and besieged. They look forward to doing very badly against this new Congress in the local elections. This after governing as a national party, as it were, for thirty years.”
Elaborating, the 92-year-old historian and prolific author notes: “The industrialisation policy, taking land away from the peasants, had a very bad effect, and was clearly a mistake. I can see that, like all such surviving Left-wing governments, they had to accommodate economic development, including private development, and so it seemed natural for them to develop a strong industrial base. But it does seem slightly surprising that it should have led to such a dramatic turnaround.”
It is not clear whether the comment on the Left Front government’s industrialisation policy as the main cause of the CPM’s Lok Sabha poll results is Hobsbawm’s own or based on his conversation with Karat. It is also not clear how recently that conversation took place — immediately after the election results or much later.
Although the CPM general secretary has not been as forthright in public as he has been with Hobsbawm, it is well known in party circles that he represents the dominant view in the party holding the Bengal government’s policies as primarily responsible for the Lok Sabha rout.
The alternative view, which many in the Bengal state unit hold and which is tacitly backed by sections in the central leadership as well, is that the CPM would not have fared so badly had the Trinamul Congress and the Congress not joined hands and taken on the Left united. This view indirectly blames Karat’s decision of withdrawing support to the UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal and thus facilitating the Trinamul-Congress tie-up for the party’s disastrous showing last May.
This section also believes that it is in the CPM’s interest to drive a wedge between Trinamul and the Congress, and be less hostile to the Congress at the national and state levels in pursuance of this objective.
Officially, so far, the Karat line has prevailed. The CPM central committee, in its assessment of the Lok Sabha results in June 2009, “was of the firm opinion that the withdrawal of support to the UPA government on the nuclear deal in July 2008 was correct”.
It also endorsed Karat’s pre-poll efforts to form a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative or what is referred to as the third front as “a correct tactic”. The only criticism voiced by the central committee was that “it failed to be a viable and credible alternative at the national level” and that “in the absence of a countrywide alliance and no common policy platform being presented, the call for an alternative government was unrealistic”.
The central committee’s review of the party’s performance in Bengal also endorsed the general secretary’s line in so far as no mention was made of the Trinamul-Congress combine as a factor in the Left’s defeat.
Blaming “political, governmental and organisational reasons” for the setbacks, the review noted that “there is some erosion of support among the rural and urban poor and sections of the middle classes. There are shortcomings in the functioning of government, panchayats and municipalities based on a proper class outlook. This is due to the failure of the government to implement properly various measures directly concerning the lives of the people.
“The apprehension about land acquisition has contributed to the alienation amongst some sections of the peasantry,” the review said.
While this remains the official view, there has been a growing feeling in sections of the party that the central leadership and the general secretary had chosen to put all the blame on Bengal for the poll setbacks. That the central line, which facilitated a united Opposition, was a factor has been swept aside entirely.
These sections also believe that when the party is faced with hostility all around, the central leadership should avoid overt and covert criticism of the Bengal government and not foster “a defeatist” attitude in the run-up to the Assembly elections which are over a year away.
In this context, Karat’s comments to Hobsbawm which have spilled out in the public domain could further demoralise an already demoralised state unit just as it was shedding some of its defeatism in the wake of the massive turnout to bid farewell to Jyoti Basu a few weeks ago.
Date : 02/03/2010. News by Newsofap.com http://www.newsofap.com/
/newsofap-7394-25-prakash-karat-hints-at-communists-losing-west-bengal-newsofap.html
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
BHARAT BHARATI SAMAJ
KOLKATA
www.bharatbharatisamaj.webs.com
bharatbharatisamaj@yahoo.com
The CPM feels “beleaguered and besieged” in Bengal and expects to do “very badly” in the next round of Assembly elections.
This harsh assessment has been made by none less than party general secretary Prakash Karat, according to renowned British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm.
In an interview in the latest (Jan.-Feb. 2010) issue of the prestigious Left journal New Left Review, Hobsbawm discusses the changes that have taken place across the world in the first decade of the 21st century.
Among the developments that have surprised him since he wrote his tome Age of Extremes on the 20th century, Hobsbawm lists the “collapse of the CPI(M) in West Bengal which I really wouldn’t have expected”.
He goes on to say: “Prakash Karat, the CPI(M) general secretary, recently told me that in West Bengal, they felt themselves beleaguered and besieged. They look forward to doing very badly against this new Congress in the local elections. This after governing as a national party, as it were, for thirty years.”
Elaborating, the 92-year-old historian and prolific author notes: “The industrialisation policy, taking land away from the peasants, had a very bad effect, and was clearly a mistake. I can see that, like all such surviving Left-wing governments, they had to accommodate economic development, including private development, and so it seemed natural for them to develop a strong industrial base. But it does seem slightly surprising that it should have led to such a dramatic turnaround.”
It is not clear whether the comment on the Left Front government’s industrialisation policy as the main cause of the CPM’s Lok Sabha poll results is Hobsbawm’s own or based on his conversation with Karat. It is also not clear how recently that conversation took place — immediately after the election results or much later.
Although the CPM general secretary has not been as forthright in public as he has been with Hobsbawm, it is well known in party circles that he represents the dominant view in the party holding the Bengal government’s policies as primarily responsible for the Lok Sabha rout.
The alternative view, which many in the Bengal state unit hold and which is tacitly backed by sections in the central leadership as well, is that the CPM would not have fared so badly had the Trinamul Congress and the Congress not joined hands and taken on the Left united. This view indirectly blames Karat’s decision of withdrawing support to the UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal and thus facilitating the Trinamul-Congress tie-up for the party’s disastrous showing last May.
This section also believes that it is in the CPM’s interest to drive a wedge between Trinamul and the Congress, and be less hostile to the Congress at the national and state levels in pursuance of this objective.
Officially, so far, the Karat line has prevailed. The CPM central committee, in its assessment of the Lok Sabha results in June 2009, “was of the firm opinion that the withdrawal of support to the UPA government on the nuclear deal in July 2008 was correct”.
It also endorsed Karat’s pre-poll efforts to form a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative or what is referred to as the third front as “a correct tactic”. The only criticism voiced by the central committee was that “it failed to be a viable and credible alternative at the national level” and that “in the absence of a countrywide alliance and no common policy platform being presented, the call for an alternative government was unrealistic”.
The central committee’s review of the party’s performance in Bengal also endorsed the general secretary’s line in so far as no mention was made of the Trinamul-Congress combine as a factor in the Left’s defeat.
Blaming “political, governmental and organisational reasons” for the setbacks, the review noted that “there is some erosion of support among the rural and urban poor and sections of the middle classes. There are shortcomings in the functioning of government, panchayats and municipalities based on a proper class outlook. This is due to the failure of the government to implement properly various measures directly concerning the lives of the people.
“The apprehension about land acquisition has contributed to the alienation amongst some sections of the peasantry,” the review said.
While this remains the official view, there has been a growing feeling in sections of the party that the central leadership and the general secretary had chosen to put all the blame on Bengal for the poll setbacks. That the central line, which facilitated a united Opposition, was a factor has been swept aside entirely.
These sections also believe that when the party is faced with hostility all around, the central leadership should avoid overt and covert criticism of the Bengal government and not foster “a defeatist” attitude in the run-up to the Assembly elections which are over a year away.
In this context, Karat’s comments to Hobsbawm which have spilled out in the public domain could further demoralise an already demoralised state unit just as it was shedding some of its defeatism in the wake of the massive turnout to bid farewell to Jyoti Basu a few weeks ago.
Date : 02/03/2010. News by Newsofap.com http://www.newsofap.com/
/newsofap-7394-25-prakash-karat-hints-at-communists-losing-west-bengal-newsofap.html
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
BHARAT BHARATI SAMAJ
KOLKATA
www.bharatbharatisamaj.webs.com
bharatbharatisamaj@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)