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
Friday 13 May 2011
BLOG OF DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA: Short biography of a Great Leader of WEST BENGAL
BLOG OF DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA: Short biography of a Great Leader of WEST BENGAL: "Short biography of Leader Mamta Banerjee Mamta Banerjee ( Also known as “DIDI” ) born on 5 January 1955 in kolkata city.She has completed..."
Short biography of a Great Leader of WEST BENGAL
Short biography of Leader Mamta Banerjee
Mamta Banerjee ( Also known as “DIDI” ) born on 5 January 1955 in kolkata city.She has completed her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Calcutta University in Arts. Later studied B.Ed. was done from the Sikshayatan College, Calcutta and M.A. from the University of Calcutta respectively.she completed LL.B. from the Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law, Kolkata.
She started her political career in year 1970s with congress party, she has been General Secretary of Mahila Congress (I), West Bengal, from 1976 to 1980.In the 1984 general election, she became one of India’s youngest parliamentarians ever, beating veteran Communist politician Somnath Chatterjee, from the Jadavpur parliamentary Constituency in West Bengal. She also became the General-Secretary of the All India Youth Congress. Losing her seat in 1989 in an anti-Congress wave, she was back in 1991 general elections, having settled into the Calcutta South constituency. She retained the Kolkata South seat in the 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2009 general elections.
In year 1991 which the period of Roa government she was Union Minister of State for Human Resources Development, Youth Affairs and Sports, and Women and Child Development.
In 1997, Mamata Banerjee split the Congress Party in West Bengal and established the All India Trinamool Congress. It quickly became the primary opposition to the long-standing Communist government in the state. On 11 December 1998, she controversially held a Samajwadi Party MP, Daroga Prasad Saroj, by the collar and dragged him out of the well of the Lok Sabha to prevent him from protesting against the Women’s Reservation bill.
In 1999, she joined the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government and was allocated the Railways Ministry.
In early 2001, after making allegations against the BJP, she walked out of the NDA cabinet and allied with the Congress Party for West Bengal’s 2001 elections, amidst speculation that the move could unseat the Communist government. She returned to the cabinet in January 2004, holding the Ministry of Coal and Mines portfolios until the 2004 Elections, in which she was the only Trinamool Congress member to win a Parliament seat from West Bengal.
Trinamool congress performed well in the 2009 parliamentary election, bagging 19 MP seats, among them 5 women (including her), reiterating her faith in the Women’s Reservation Bill. It’s allies Congress and SUCI also got 6 and 1 MP seats respectively. This is the best performance by any opposition party in West Bengal since the start of the left regime. Till date the congress victory of 16 seats in 1984, by the sympathy vote after the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, was considered the best opposition show. Now she won the chair of CHIEF MINISTER OF WEST BENGAL. I Congratulate her............DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA, SOCIAL WORKER, KOLKATA.
Thursday 12 May 2011
'भ्रष्टाचार नैतिक नहीं राजनीतिक समस्या है' :
'भ्रष्टाचार नैतिक नहीं राजनीतिक समस्या है' :
भ्रष्टाचार सुरसा के मुँह की तरह फैलता जा रहा है.भ्रष्टाचार की विकास दर कल्पना से परे है. घोटाला दर घोटाला जितनी बड़ी रक़में निगली जा रही हैं , उसका कोई हिसाब नहीं. इसलिए कोई आश्चर्य की बात नहीं है कि इस देश के लोग बुरी तरह नाराज़ हैं. लेकिन ग़ुस्से में होने का मतलब ये नहीं है कि आप साफ़ साफ़ सोच भी पा रहे हों. अन्ना हज़ारे और उनकी टीम के समर्थन में जंतर मंतर पहुँचे हज़ारों - हज़ार लोगों के सामने भ्रष्टाचार को एक नैतिक मुद्दे की तरह पेश किया गया, एक राजनैतिक या व्यवस्था की कमज़ोरी की तरह नहीं. वहाँ भ्रष्टाचार पैदा करने वाली व्यवस्था को बदलने या उसे तोड़ने का कोई आह्वान नहीं किया गया.
'भ्रष्टाचार नैतिक नहीं राजनीतिक समस्या है'.
इसमें भी कोई आश्चर्य नहीं है क्योंकि जंतर मंतर पर मौजूद मध्यम वर्ग के ज़्यादातर लोगों और कॉरपोरेट-समर्थित मीडिया को भ्रष्टाचार के जनक इन आर्थिक सुधारों का बहुत फ़ायदा हुआ. मीडिया ने इस आंदोलन को “क्रांति” और भारत का तहरीर चौक बताया. इसी मीडिया ने पहले दिल्ली में हज़ारों हज़ार ग़रीब लोगों की रैलियों को नज़रअंदाज़ किया क्योंकि उनकी माँगें कॉरपोरेट एजेंडा के माफ़िक़ नहीं थीं.
जब भ्रष्टाचार को धुँधले तरीक़े से, सिर्फ़ एक ‘नैतिक’ समस्या के तौर पर देखा जाता है तो हर कोई इससे जुड़ने को तैयार हो जाता है – फ़ासीवादी, जनतांत्रिक, अराजकतावादी, ईश्वर-उपासक, दिवस-सैलानी, दक्षिणपंथी, वामपंथी और यहाँ तक कि घनघोर भ्रष्ट लोग जो आम तौर पर प्रदर्शन करने को हमेशा उत्सुक रहते हैं. ये एक ऐसा घड़ा है जिसे बनाना बहुत आसान है और उससे आसान उसे तोड़ना है. अन्ना हज़ारे ने अपने बनाए इस बर्तन पर सबसे पहले पत्थर मारा और वामपंथी समर्थकों को हैरान कर दिया जब वो नरेंद्र मोदी को विकास-प्रतिबद्ध मुख्यमंत्री का जामा पहना कर अपने मंच के केंद्र में ले आए. उन्होंने विकास के नाम पर मोदी की उपलब्धियों की झूठी प्रकृति पर बहस में पड़ना ठीक नहीं समझा. हम में से कई लोग ये सोचते रह गए कि क्या हमें भ्रष्ट मगर कथित जनतांत्रिक लोगों की जगह एक ईमानदार फ़ासीवादी नेता का विकल्प दिया जा रहा है.
मूलभूत प्रश्न
जब तक मौजूदा आर्थिक नीतियाँ जारी हैं तब तक राष्ट्रीय रोज़गार गारंटी योजना से भूख और कुपोषण ख़त्म नहीं किया जा सकता. भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी क़ानून से अन्याय नहीं ख़त्म हो सकता और अपराध विरोधी क़ानूनों से सांप्रदायिक फ़ासीवाद को ख़त्म नहीं किया जा सकता.
भारत भारती समाज एक मज़बूत भ्रष्टाचार-विरोधी संस्था के ख़िलाफ़ नहीं हैं , पर ये भरोसा पाना हैं कि ऐसी संस्था बहुत सारे अधिकार पाने के बाद ग़ैरज़िम्मेदार और ग़ैरजनतांत्रिक न हो जाए. हालाँकि सिर्फ़ क़ानूनी तरीक़ों से ही सांप्रदायिक फ़ासीवाद और उस आर्थिक निरंकुशता के ख़िलाफ़ लड़ा जा सकता है जिसके कारण 80 करोड़ से ज़्यादा लोग क़ानूनी तरीक़े से 20 रुपए प्रतिदिन पर गुज़र करते हैं.
जब तक मौजूदा आर्थिक नीतियाँ जारी हैं तब तक राष्ट्रीय रोज़गार गारंटी योजना से भूख और कुपोषण ख़त्म नहीं किया जा सकता. भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी क़ानून से अन्याय नहीं ख़त्म हो सकता और अपराध विरोधी क़ानूनों से सांप्रदायिक फ़ासीवाद को ख़त्म नहीं किया जा सकता.
क्या सूचना के अधिकार या जन लोकपाल बिल के ज़रिए उड़ीसा, झारखंड और छत्तीसगढ़ में किए गए उन गुप्त सहमति पत्रों को सामने लाया जा सकता है जिन पर सरकार ने व्यापार घरानों के साथ दस्तख़त किए हैं और जिनके लिए वो अपने सबसे ग़रीब नागरिकों के ख़िलाफ़ युद्ध छेड़ने को तैयार है? अगर ऐसा हो सकता है तो इन सहमति पत्रों से ये स्पष्ट हो जाएगा कि सरकार देश की खनिज संपदा को निजी कॉरपोरेशनों के हाथों कौड़ियों के मोल बेच रही है. लेकिन ये भ्रष्टाचार नहीं है. ये पूरी तरह क़ानूनी लूट है और 2-जी घोटाले से कई गुना बड़ा घोटाला है. अगर हमें सूचना के अधिकार के तहत ये सूचना मिल भी जाती है तो हम उस सूचना का क्या कर पाएँगे?
जंतर मंतर की क्रांति में अगर किसी ने इन समझौता पत्रों का सवाल उठाया तो वह है भारत भारती समाज का कर्मठ सिपाही जो पश्चिम बंगाल में तहलका मचाने के वाद अब संपूर्ण भारत से भ्रष्टाचार मिटाने का अभियान छेड़ा है ; किन्तु राज-नेताओं के साथ नहीं ; क्योँ कि सिर्फ एक प्रितिशत राज नेताओं को छोड़कर सबके सब भ्रष्ट हैं I हमारी सम्पति उनकी पॉकेट कि सम्पति हो गयी है I भगवान् ही बचाए ऐसे नेताओं से I
(भारत भारती समाज (कोलकाता ) की ओर से दिल्ली में 29 अप्रैल को आयोजित एक सेमीनार में अपना विचार प्रस्तुत करते हुए डॉ. माया शंकर झा के भाषण के कुछ अंश)
BLOG OF DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA: Rabindranath Tagore was an icon of Indian culture
BLOG OF DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA: Rabindranath Tagore was an icon of Indian culture: "Born: May 7, 1861 Died: August 7, 1941 Achievements: Rabindranath Tagore became the first Asian to became Nobel laureate when he..."
Thursday 5 May 2011
The Basic Theories of Karl Marx
Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Marx himself considered his theory of surplus-value his most important contribution to the progress of economic analysis (Marx, letter to Engels of 24 August 1867). It is through this theory that the wide scope of his sociological and historical thought enables him simultaneously to place the capitalist mode of production in his historical context, and to find the root of its inner economic contradictions and its laws of motion in the specific relations of production on which it is based.
As said before, Marx’s theory of classes is based on the recognition that in each class society, part of society (the ruling class) appropriates the social surplus product. But that surplus product can take three essentially different forms (or a combination of them). It can take the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour, as in the slave mode of production, early feudalism or some sectors of the Asiatic mode of production (unpaid corvée labour for the Empire). It can take the form of goods appropriated by the ruling class in the form of use-values pure and simple (the products of surplus labour), as under feudalism when feudal rent is paid in a certain amount of produce (produce rent) or in its more modern remnants, such as sharecropping. And it can take a money form, like money-rent in the final phases of feudalism, and capitalist profits. Surplus-value is essentially just that: the money form of the social surplus product or, what amounts to the same, the money product of surplus labour. It has therefore a common root with all other forms of surplus product: unpaid labour.
This means that Marx’s theory of surplus-value is basically a deduction (or residual) theory of the ruling classes’ income. The whole social product (the net national income) is produced in the course of the process of production, exactly as the whole crop is harvested by the peasants. What happens on the market (or through appropriation of the produce) is a distribution (or redistribution) of what already has been created. The surplus product, and therefore also its money form, surplus-value, is the residual of that new (net) social product (income) which remains after the producing classes have received their compensation (under capitalism: their wages). This ’deduction’ theory of the ruling classes’ income is thus ipso factor an exploitation theory. Not in the ethical sense of the word - although Marx and Engels obviously manifested a lot of understandable moral indignation at the fate of all the exploited throughout history, and especially at the fate of the modern proletariat - but in the economic one. The income of the ruling classes can always be reduced in the final analysis to the product of unpaid labour: that is the heart of Marx’s theory of exploitation.
That is also the reason why Marx attached so much importance to treating surplus-value as a general category, over and above profits (themselves subdivided into industrial profits, bank profits, commercial profits etc.), interest and rent, which are all part of the total surplus product produced by wage labour. It is this general category which explains both the existence (the common interest) of the ruling class (all those who live off surplus value), and the origins of the class struggle under capitalism.
Marx likewise laid bare the economic mechanism through which surplus-value originates. At the basis of that economic mechanism is a huge social upheaval which started in Western Europe in the 15th century and slowly spread over the rest of the continent and all other continents (in many so-called underdeveloped countries, it is still going on to this day).
Through many concomitant economic (including technical), social, political and cultural transformations, the mass of the direct producers, essentially peasants and handicraftsmen, are separated from their means of production and cut off from free access to the land. They are therefore unable to produce their livelihood on their own account. In order to keep themselves and their families alive, they have to hire out their arms, their muscles and their brains, to the owners of the means of production (including land). If and when these owners have enough money capital at their disposal to buy raw materials and pay wages, they can start to organise production on a capitalist basis, using wage labour to transform the raw materials which they buy, with the tools they own, into finished products which they then automatically own too.
The capitalist mode of production thus presupposes that the producers’ labour power has become a commodity. Like all other commodities, the commodity labour power has an exchange value and a use value. The exchange value of labour power, like the exchange value of all other commodities, is the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in it, i.e. its reproduction costs. This means concretely the value of all the consumer goods and services necessary for a labourer to work day after day, week after week, month after month, at approximately the same level of intensity, and for the members of the labouring classes to remain approximately stable in number and skill (i.e. for a certain number of working-class children to be fed, kept and schooled, so as to replace their parents when they are unable to work any more, or die). But the use value of the commodity labour power is precisely its capacity to create new value, including its potential to create more value than its own reproduction costs. Surplus-value is but that difference between the total new value created by the commodity labour power, and its own value, its own reproduction costs. The whole marxian theory of surplus-value is therefore based upon that subtle distinction between ’labour power’ and ’labour’ (or value). But there is nothing ’metaphysical’ about this distinction. It is simply an explanation (demystification) of a process which occurs daily in millions of cases.
The capitalist does not buy the worker’s ’labour’. If he did that there would be obvious theft, for the worker’s wage is obviously smaller than the total value he adds to that of the raw materials in the course of the process of production. No: the capitalist buys ’labour power’, and often (not always of course) he buys it at its justum pretium, at its real value. So he feels unjustly accused when he is said to have caused a ’dishonest’ operation. The worker is victim not of vulgar theft but of a social set-up which condemns him first to transform his productive capacity into a commodity, then to sell that labour power on a specific market (the labour market) characterised by institutional inequality, and finally to content himself with the market price he can get for that commodity, irrespective of whether the new value he creates during the process of production exceeds that market price (his wage) by a small amount, a large amount, or an enormous amount.
The labour power the capitalist has bought ’adds value’ to that of the used-up raw materials and tools (machinery, buildings etc.). If, and until that point of time, this added value is inferior or equal to the workers’ wages, surplus-value cannot originate. But in that case, the capitalist has obviously no interest in hiring wage labour. He only hires it because that wage labour has the quality (the use value) to add to the raw materials’ value more than its own value (i.e. its own wages). This ’additional added value’ (the difference between total ’value added’ and wages) is precisely surplus-value. Its emergence from the process of production is the precondition for the capitalists’ hiring workers, for the existence of the capitalist mode of production.
The institutional inequality existing on the labour market (masked for liberal economists, sociologists and moral philosophers alike by juridical equality) arises from the very fact that the capitalist mode of production is based upon generalised commodity production, generalised market economy. This implies that a propertyless labourer, who owns no capital, who has no reserves of larger sums of money but who has to buy his food and clothes, pay his rent and even elementary public transportation for journeying between home and workplace, in a continuous way in exchange of money, is under the economic compulsion to sell the only commodity he possesses, to wit his labour power, also on a continuous basis. He cannot withdraw from the labour market until the wages go up. He cannot wait.
But the capitalist, who has money reserves, can temporarily withdraw from the labour market. He can lay his workers off, can even close or sell his enterprise and wait a couple of years before starting again in business. The institutional differences makes price determination of the labour market a game with loaded dice, heavily biased against the working class. One just has to imagine a social set-up in which each citizen would be guaranteed an annual minimum income by the community, irrespective of whether he is employed or not, to understand that ’wage determination’ under these circumstances would be quite different from what it is under capitalism. In such a set-up the individual would really have the economic choice whether to sell his labour power to another person (or a firm) or not. Under capitalism, he has no choice. His is forced by economic compulsion to go through that sale, practically at any price.
The economic function and importance of trade unions for the wage-earners also clearly arises from that elementary analysis. For it is precisely the workers’ ’combination’ and their assembling a collective resistance fund (what was called by the first French unions caisses de résistance, ’reserve deposits’) which enables them, for example through a strike, to withdraw the supply of labour power temporarily from the market so as to stop a downward trend of wages or induce a wage increase. There is nothing ’unjust’ in such a temporary withdrawal of the supply of labour power, as there are constant withdrawals of demand for labour power by the capitalists, sometimes on a huge scale never equalled by strikes. Through the functioning of strong labour unions, the working class tries to correct, albeit partially and modestly, the institutional inequality on the labour market of which it is a victim, without ever being able to neutralise it durably or completely.
It cannot neutralise it durably because in the very way in which capitalism functions there is a powerful built-in corrective in favour of capital: the inevitable emergence of an industrial reserve army of labour. There are three key sources for that reserve army: the mass of precapitalist producers and self-employed (independent peasants, handicraftsmen, trades-people, professional people, small and medium-sized capitalists); the mass of housewives (and to a lesser extent, children); the mass of the wage-earners themselves, who potentially can be thrown out of employment.
The first two sources have to be visualised not only in each capitalist country seen separately but on a world scale, through the operations of international migration. They are still unlimited to a great extent, although the number of wage-earners the world over (including agricultural wage labourers) has already passed the one billion mark. As the third source, while it is obviously not unlimited (if wage labour would disappear altogether, if all wage labourers would be fired, surplus-value production would disappear too; that is why ’total robotism’ is impossible under capitalism), its reserves are enormous, precisely in tandem with the enormous growth of the absolute number of wage earners.
The fluctuations of the industrial reserve army are determined both by the business cycle and by long-term trends of capital accumulation. Rapidly increasing capital accumulation attracts wage labour on a massive scale, including through international migration. Likewise, deceleration, stagnation or even decline of capital accumulation inflates the reserve army of labour. There is thus an upper limit to wage increases, when profits (realised profits and expected profits) are ’excessively’ reduced in the eyes of the capitalists, which triggers off such decelerated, stagnating or declining capital accumulation, thereby decreasing employment and wages, till a ’reasonable’ level of profits is restored. This process does not correspond to any ’natural economic law’ (or necessity), nor does it correspond to any ’immanent justice’. It just expresses the inner logic of the capitalist mode of production, which is geared to profit. Other forms of economic organisation could function, have functioned and are functioning on the basis of other logics, which do not lead to periodic massive unemployment. On the contrary, a socialist would say - and Marx certainly thought so - that the capitalist system is an ’unjust’, or better stated ’alienating’, ’inhuman’ social system, precisely because it cannot function without periodically reducing employment and the satisfaction of elementary needs for tens of millions of human beings.
Marx’s theory of surplus-value is therefore closely intertwined with a theory of wages which is far away from Malthus’s, Ricardo’s or the early socialists’ (like Ferdinand Lassalle’s) ‘iron law of wages’, in which wages tend to fluctuate around the physiological minimum. That crude theory of ‘absolute pauperisation’ of the working class under capitalism, attributed to Marx by many authors (Popper, 1945, et a1.), is not Marx’s at all, as many contemporary authors have convincingly demonstrated (see among others Rosdolsky, 1968). Such an ‘iron law of wages’ is essentially a demographic one, in which birth rates and the frequency of marriages determine the fluctuation of employment and unemployment and thereby the level of wages.
The logical and empirical inconsistencies of such a theory are obvious. Let it be sufficient to point out that while fluctuations in the supply of wage-labourers are considered essential, fluctuations in the demand for labour power are left out of the analysis. It is certainly a paradox that the staunch opponent of capitalism, Karl Marx, pointed out as early as in the middle of the 19th century the potential for wage increases under capitalism, even though not unlimited in time and space. Marx also stressed the fact that for each capitalist, wage increases of other capitalists’ workers are considered increases of potential purchasing power, not increases in costs.
Marx distinguishes two parts in the workers’ wage, two elements of reproduction costs of the commodity labour power. One is purely physiological, and can be expressed in calories and energy quanta; this is the bottom below which the wage cannot fall without destroying slowly rapidly the workers’ labour capacity. The second one is historical-moral, as Marx calls it, and consists of those additional goods and services which a shift in the class relationship of forces, such as a victorious class struggle, enables the working class to incorporate into the average wage, the socially necessary (recognised) reproduction costs of the commodity labour power (e.g. holidays after the French general strike of June 1936). This part of the wage is essentially flexible. It will differ from country to country, continent to continent and from epoch to epoch, according to many variables. But it has the upper limit indicated above: the ceiling from which profits threaten to disappear, or to become insufficient in the eyes of the capitalists, who then go on an ‘investment strike’.
So Marx’s theory of wages is essentially an accumulation-of-capital theory of wages which sends us back to what Marx considered the first ‘law of motion’ of the capitalist mode of production: the compulsion for the capitalists to step up constantly the rate of capital accumulation.
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
E-MAIL: mayashankarjha@hotmail.com / mayashankarjha@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.mayashankarjha.webs.com
MOBILE: +919038964616
Marx himself considered his theory of surplus-value his most important contribution to the progress of economic analysis (Marx, letter to Engels of 24 August 1867). It is through this theory that the wide scope of his sociological and historical thought enables him simultaneously to place the capitalist mode of production in his historical context, and to find the root of its inner economic contradictions and its laws of motion in the specific relations of production on which it is based.
As said before, Marx’s theory of classes is based on the recognition that in each class society, part of society (the ruling class) appropriates the social surplus product. But that surplus product can take three essentially different forms (or a combination of them). It can take the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour, as in the slave mode of production, early feudalism or some sectors of the Asiatic mode of production (unpaid corvée labour for the Empire). It can take the form of goods appropriated by the ruling class in the form of use-values pure and simple (the products of surplus labour), as under feudalism when feudal rent is paid in a certain amount of produce (produce rent) or in its more modern remnants, such as sharecropping. And it can take a money form, like money-rent in the final phases of feudalism, and capitalist profits. Surplus-value is essentially just that: the money form of the social surplus product or, what amounts to the same, the money product of surplus labour. It has therefore a common root with all other forms of surplus product: unpaid labour.
This means that Marx’s theory of surplus-value is basically a deduction (or residual) theory of the ruling classes’ income. The whole social product (the net national income) is produced in the course of the process of production, exactly as the whole crop is harvested by the peasants. What happens on the market (or through appropriation of the produce) is a distribution (or redistribution) of what already has been created. The surplus product, and therefore also its money form, surplus-value, is the residual of that new (net) social product (income) which remains after the producing classes have received their compensation (under capitalism: their wages). This ’deduction’ theory of the ruling classes’ income is thus ipso factor an exploitation theory. Not in the ethical sense of the word - although Marx and Engels obviously manifested a lot of understandable moral indignation at the fate of all the exploited throughout history, and especially at the fate of the modern proletariat - but in the economic one. The income of the ruling classes can always be reduced in the final analysis to the product of unpaid labour: that is the heart of Marx’s theory of exploitation.
That is also the reason why Marx attached so much importance to treating surplus-value as a general category, over and above profits (themselves subdivided into industrial profits, bank profits, commercial profits etc.), interest and rent, which are all part of the total surplus product produced by wage labour. It is this general category which explains both the existence (the common interest) of the ruling class (all those who live off surplus value), and the origins of the class struggle under capitalism.
Marx likewise laid bare the economic mechanism through which surplus-value originates. At the basis of that economic mechanism is a huge social upheaval which started in Western Europe in the 15th century and slowly spread over the rest of the continent and all other continents (in many so-called underdeveloped countries, it is still going on to this day).
Through many concomitant economic (including technical), social, political and cultural transformations, the mass of the direct producers, essentially peasants and handicraftsmen, are separated from their means of production and cut off from free access to the land. They are therefore unable to produce their livelihood on their own account. In order to keep themselves and their families alive, they have to hire out their arms, their muscles and their brains, to the owners of the means of production (including land). If and when these owners have enough money capital at their disposal to buy raw materials and pay wages, they can start to organise production on a capitalist basis, using wage labour to transform the raw materials which they buy, with the tools they own, into finished products which they then automatically own too.
The capitalist mode of production thus presupposes that the producers’ labour power has become a commodity. Like all other commodities, the commodity labour power has an exchange value and a use value. The exchange value of labour power, like the exchange value of all other commodities, is the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in it, i.e. its reproduction costs. This means concretely the value of all the consumer goods and services necessary for a labourer to work day after day, week after week, month after month, at approximately the same level of intensity, and for the members of the labouring classes to remain approximately stable in number and skill (i.e. for a certain number of working-class children to be fed, kept and schooled, so as to replace their parents when they are unable to work any more, or die). But the use value of the commodity labour power is precisely its capacity to create new value, including its potential to create more value than its own reproduction costs. Surplus-value is but that difference between the total new value created by the commodity labour power, and its own value, its own reproduction costs. The whole marxian theory of surplus-value is therefore based upon that subtle distinction between ’labour power’ and ’labour’ (or value). But there is nothing ’metaphysical’ about this distinction. It is simply an explanation (demystification) of a process which occurs daily in millions of cases.
The capitalist does not buy the worker’s ’labour’. If he did that there would be obvious theft, for the worker’s wage is obviously smaller than the total value he adds to that of the raw materials in the course of the process of production. No: the capitalist buys ’labour power’, and often (not always of course) he buys it at its justum pretium, at its real value. So he feels unjustly accused when he is said to have caused a ’dishonest’ operation. The worker is victim not of vulgar theft but of a social set-up which condemns him first to transform his productive capacity into a commodity, then to sell that labour power on a specific market (the labour market) characterised by institutional inequality, and finally to content himself with the market price he can get for that commodity, irrespective of whether the new value he creates during the process of production exceeds that market price (his wage) by a small amount, a large amount, or an enormous amount.
The labour power the capitalist has bought ’adds value’ to that of the used-up raw materials and tools (machinery, buildings etc.). If, and until that point of time, this added value is inferior or equal to the workers’ wages, surplus-value cannot originate. But in that case, the capitalist has obviously no interest in hiring wage labour. He only hires it because that wage labour has the quality (the use value) to add to the raw materials’ value more than its own value (i.e. its own wages). This ’additional added value’ (the difference between total ’value added’ and wages) is precisely surplus-value. Its emergence from the process of production is the precondition for the capitalists’ hiring workers, for the existence of the capitalist mode of production.
The institutional inequality existing on the labour market (masked for liberal economists, sociologists and moral philosophers alike by juridical equality) arises from the very fact that the capitalist mode of production is based upon generalised commodity production, generalised market economy. This implies that a propertyless labourer, who owns no capital, who has no reserves of larger sums of money but who has to buy his food and clothes, pay his rent and even elementary public transportation for journeying between home and workplace, in a continuous way in exchange of money, is under the economic compulsion to sell the only commodity he possesses, to wit his labour power, also on a continuous basis. He cannot withdraw from the labour market until the wages go up. He cannot wait.
But the capitalist, who has money reserves, can temporarily withdraw from the labour market. He can lay his workers off, can even close or sell his enterprise and wait a couple of years before starting again in business. The institutional differences makes price determination of the labour market a game with loaded dice, heavily biased against the working class. One just has to imagine a social set-up in which each citizen would be guaranteed an annual minimum income by the community, irrespective of whether he is employed or not, to understand that ’wage determination’ under these circumstances would be quite different from what it is under capitalism. In such a set-up the individual would really have the economic choice whether to sell his labour power to another person (or a firm) or not. Under capitalism, he has no choice. His is forced by economic compulsion to go through that sale, practically at any price.
The economic function and importance of trade unions for the wage-earners also clearly arises from that elementary analysis. For it is precisely the workers’ ’combination’ and their assembling a collective resistance fund (what was called by the first French unions caisses de résistance, ’reserve deposits’) which enables them, for example through a strike, to withdraw the supply of labour power temporarily from the market so as to stop a downward trend of wages or induce a wage increase. There is nothing ’unjust’ in such a temporary withdrawal of the supply of labour power, as there are constant withdrawals of demand for labour power by the capitalists, sometimes on a huge scale never equalled by strikes. Through the functioning of strong labour unions, the working class tries to correct, albeit partially and modestly, the institutional inequality on the labour market of which it is a victim, without ever being able to neutralise it durably or completely.
It cannot neutralise it durably because in the very way in which capitalism functions there is a powerful built-in corrective in favour of capital: the inevitable emergence of an industrial reserve army of labour. There are three key sources for that reserve army: the mass of precapitalist producers and self-employed (independent peasants, handicraftsmen, trades-people, professional people, small and medium-sized capitalists); the mass of housewives (and to a lesser extent, children); the mass of the wage-earners themselves, who potentially can be thrown out of employment.
The first two sources have to be visualised not only in each capitalist country seen separately but on a world scale, through the operations of international migration. They are still unlimited to a great extent, although the number of wage-earners the world over (including agricultural wage labourers) has already passed the one billion mark. As the third source, while it is obviously not unlimited (if wage labour would disappear altogether, if all wage labourers would be fired, surplus-value production would disappear too; that is why ’total robotism’ is impossible under capitalism), its reserves are enormous, precisely in tandem with the enormous growth of the absolute number of wage earners.
The fluctuations of the industrial reserve army are determined both by the business cycle and by long-term trends of capital accumulation. Rapidly increasing capital accumulation attracts wage labour on a massive scale, including through international migration. Likewise, deceleration, stagnation or even decline of capital accumulation inflates the reserve army of labour. There is thus an upper limit to wage increases, when profits (realised profits and expected profits) are ’excessively’ reduced in the eyes of the capitalists, which triggers off such decelerated, stagnating or declining capital accumulation, thereby decreasing employment and wages, till a ’reasonable’ level of profits is restored. This process does not correspond to any ’natural economic law’ (or necessity), nor does it correspond to any ’immanent justice’. It just expresses the inner logic of the capitalist mode of production, which is geared to profit. Other forms of economic organisation could function, have functioned and are functioning on the basis of other logics, which do not lead to periodic massive unemployment. On the contrary, a socialist would say - and Marx certainly thought so - that the capitalist system is an ’unjust’, or better stated ’alienating’, ’inhuman’ social system, precisely because it cannot function without periodically reducing employment and the satisfaction of elementary needs for tens of millions of human beings.
Marx’s theory of surplus-value is therefore closely intertwined with a theory of wages which is far away from Malthus’s, Ricardo’s or the early socialists’ (like Ferdinand Lassalle’s) ‘iron law of wages’, in which wages tend to fluctuate around the physiological minimum. That crude theory of ‘absolute pauperisation’ of the working class under capitalism, attributed to Marx by many authors (Popper, 1945, et a1.), is not Marx’s at all, as many contemporary authors have convincingly demonstrated (see among others Rosdolsky, 1968). Such an ‘iron law of wages’ is essentially a demographic one, in which birth rates and the frequency of marriages determine the fluctuation of employment and unemployment and thereby the level of wages.
The logical and empirical inconsistencies of such a theory are obvious. Let it be sufficient to point out that while fluctuations in the supply of wage-labourers are considered essential, fluctuations in the demand for labour power are left out of the analysis. It is certainly a paradox that the staunch opponent of capitalism, Karl Marx, pointed out as early as in the middle of the 19th century the potential for wage increases under capitalism, even though not unlimited in time and space. Marx also stressed the fact that for each capitalist, wage increases of other capitalists’ workers are considered increases of potential purchasing power, not increases in costs.
Marx distinguishes two parts in the workers’ wage, two elements of reproduction costs of the commodity labour power. One is purely physiological, and can be expressed in calories and energy quanta; this is the bottom below which the wage cannot fall without destroying slowly rapidly the workers’ labour capacity. The second one is historical-moral, as Marx calls it, and consists of those additional goods and services which a shift in the class relationship of forces, such as a victorious class struggle, enables the working class to incorporate into the average wage, the socially necessary (recognised) reproduction costs of the commodity labour power (e.g. holidays after the French general strike of June 1936). This part of the wage is essentially flexible. It will differ from country to country, continent to continent and from epoch to epoch, according to many variables. But it has the upper limit indicated above: the ceiling from which profits threaten to disappear, or to become insufficient in the eyes of the capitalists, who then go on an ‘investment strike’.
So Marx’s theory of wages is essentially an accumulation-of-capital theory of wages which sends us back to what Marx considered the first ‘law of motion’ of the capitalist mode of production: the compulsion for the capitalists to step up constantly the rate of capital accumulation.
DR. MAYA SHANKAR JHA
E-MAIL: mayashankarjha@hotmail.com / mayashankarjha@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.mayashankarjha.webs.com
MOBILE: +919038964616
ऑपरेशन ओसामा: जेरोनिमो क्या है ?
ऑपरेशन ओसामा: जेरोनिमो क्या है ?
अमरीकी मूल जनजाति के एक लड़ाके जेरोनिमो के नाम पर ऑपरेशन ओसामा का नाम रखा गया.
ओसामा बिन लादेन को पकड़ने के लिए अमरीका ने जो अभियान चलाया था उसका कोडनेम रखा था जेरोनिमो. तो आख़िर क्या है जेरोनिमो और क्यों रखा था ये नाम?
जेरोनिमो, अमरीकी मूल की जनजाति के एक लड़ाके का नाम था.
वर्ष 1887 में ली गई उनकी एक तस्वीर में उन्हें एक रायफ़ल लिए हुए दिखाया गया है.
इसी दिलेर लड़ाके ने गोरे अमरीकियों का विरोध करने वाले अमरीकी मूल जनजाति के आख़िरी जत्थे का नेतृत्व किया था.
जब अमरीकी कमांडों ने ओसामा को मार गिराया तब इसकी सूचना राष्ट्रपति बराक ओबामा को ये कहते हुए दी गई थी, ''जेरोनिमो ईकेआईए-इनेमी किल्ड इन एक्शन''
लेकिन अमरीकी अधिकारियों ने ये नहीं बताया कि उन्होंने ये कोडनेम क्यों रखा था और शायद वो कभी ना बताएं.
ये जेरोनिमो पर मिसाइल दाग़ने जैसा है. आपको कुछ बदमाशों को मारने में सफलता मिल जाएगी लेकिन इससे क्या फ़र्क़ पड़ेगा.
एलन मिलेट, अमरीकी सेना के रिटायर्ड कर्नल
एक विश्लेषक ने एक दफ़ा ओसामा बिन लादेन को 21 वीं सदी का जेरोनिमो कहा था. हो सकता है कि इस कोडनेम के पीछे इसका असर रहा हो.
जेरोनिमो
अफ़ग़ानिस्तान के पहाड़ों और गुफ़ाओं को बड़ी आसानी से अमरीका के सिएरा मैडरे पर्वत श्रृंखलाओं से जोड़ कर देखा जा सकता था जहां 19 वीं सदी में असल जेरोनिमो अमरीकी सैनिकों को लंबे समय तक चकमा देता रहा था.
अफ़ग़ानिस्तान में ओसामा की खोज के बारे में 2001 में अमरीका के एक रिटायर्ड मरीन कर्नल एलन मिलेट ने कहा था,'' ये जेरोनिमो पर मिसाइल दाग़ने जैसा है. आपको कुछ बदमाशों को मारने में सफलता मिल जाएगी लेकिन इससे क्या फ़र्क़ पड़ेगा?''
जेरोनिमो का जन्म 1829 में मौजूदा न्यू मैक्सिको में हुआ था.
अमरीकी मूल जनजाति का एक नेता होने के नाते उन्होंने स्पेन और उत्तरी अमरीकी दोनो के ही औपनिवेशिक नीतियों का विरोध किया था.
मैक्सिको पुलिस ने उनके परिवार के सदस्यों को मार दिया था जिसके बाद जेरोनिमो ने बदला लेने का ठान लिया था और ज़्यादा से ज़्यादा मैक्सिकन सैनिकों को मारने का फ़ैसला किया था.
कुछ ही दिनों में एक लड़ाके की तौर पर जेरोनिमो का नाम अमरीकी अधिकारियों की ज़बान पर था.
वो आख़िरकार 1886 में पकड़े गए थे.
अमरीकी सेना की दो विशिष्ट टुकड़ियों का नाम जेरोनिमों के नाम पर है.यहां तक की हवाई जहाज़ से पैराशूट के ज़रिए छलांग लगाते हुए अमरीकी सैनिक जेरोनिमो का नाम लेते हैं. यहां तक की कोई बच्चा जब कोई बहादुरी वाला काम करता था तो उस समय वो भी जेरोनिमो कह कर चिल्लाता था.
गोरे अमरीकियों का विरोध करने के कारण ही कई इतिहासकारों ने उनके जीवन का चित्रण काफ़ी हमदर्दी के साथ पेश किया है.
लेकिन चौंकाने वाली बात ये है कि अमरीकी सेना की दो विशिष्ट टुकड़ियों का नाम जेरोनिमों के नाम पर है.
यहां तक कि हवाई जहाज़ से पैराशूट के ज़रिए छलांग लगाते हुए अमरीकी सैनिक जेरोनिमो का नाम लेते हैं.
जब कोई बच्चा जब कोई बहादुरी वाला काम करता है तो उस समय वो भी जेरोनिमो कह कर चिल्लाता है.
इराक़ और अफ़ग़ानिस्तान मे भी तैनात अमरीकी सेना की कुछ टुकड़ियों ने जेरोनिमो उपनाम रखा हुआ है.
जेरोनिमो को ओकलाहोमा के फ़ोर्ट सिल में दफ़्न किया गया था.
लेकिन उनके वंशजों का कहना है कि उन्हें उनके असल घर न्यू मैक्सिको की गिला पहाड़ियों में दफ़नाया जाना चाहिए.
उनका मानना है कि जब तक उन्हें सही रीति रिवाज़ों के साथ नहीं दफ़नाया जाएगा उनकी आत्मा भटकती रहेगी.
डॉ. माया शंकर झा
कोलकाता
सन्दर्भ : बी.बी.सी. न्यूज़
अमरीकी मूल जनजाति के एक लड़ाके जेरोनिमो के नाम पर ऑपरेशन ओसामा का नाम रखा गया.
ओसामा बिन लादेन को पकड़ने के लिए अमरीका ने जो अभियान चलाया था उसका कोडनेम रखा था जेरोनिमो. तो आख़िर क्या है जेरोनिमो और क्यों रखा था ये नाम?
जेरोनिमो, अमरीकी मूल की जनजाति के एक लड़ाके का नाम था.
वर्ष 1887 में ली गई उनकी एक तस्वीर में उन्हें एक रायफ़ल लिए हुए दिखाया गया है.
इसी दिलेर लड़ाके ने गोरे अमरीकियों का विरोध करने वाले अमरीकी मूल जनजाति के आख़िरी जत्थे का नेतृत्व किया था.
जब अमरीकी कमांडों ने ओसामा को मार गिराया तब इसकी सूचना राष्ट्रपति बराक ओबामा को ये कहते हुए दी गई थी, ''जेरोनिमो ईकेआईए-इनेमी किल्ड इन एक्शन''
लेकिन अमरीकी अधिकारियों ने ये नहीं बताया कि उन्होंने ये कोडनेम क्यों रखा था और शायद वो कभी ना बताएं.
ये जेरोनिमो पर मिसाइल दाग़ने जैसा है. आपको कुछ बदमाशों को मारने में सफलता मिल जाएगी लेकिन इससे क्या फ़र्क़ पड़ेगा.
एलन मिलेट, अमरीकी सेना के रिटायर्ड कर्नल
एक विश्लेषक ने एक दफ़ा ओसामा बिन लादेन को 21 वीं सदी का जेरोनिमो कहा था. हो सकता है कि इस कोडनेम के पीछे इसका असर रहा हो.
जेरोनिमो
अफ़ग़ानिस्तान के पहाड़ों और गुफ़ाओं को बड़ी आसानी से अमरीका के सिएरा मैडरे पर्वत श्रृंखलाओं से जोड़ कर देखा जा सकता था जहां 19 वीं सदी में असल जेरोनिमो अमरीकी सैनिकों को लंबे समय तक चकमा देता रहा था.
अफ़ग़ानिस्तान में ओसामा की खोज के बारे में 2001 में अमरीका के एक रिटायर्ड मरीन कर्नल एलन मिलेट ने कहा था,'' ये जेरोनिमो पर मिसाइल दाग़ने जैसा है. आपको कुछ बदमाशों को मारने में सफलता मिल जाएगी लेकिन इससे क्या फ़र्क़ पड़ेगा?''
जेरोनिमो का जन्म 1829 में मौजूदा न्यू मैक्सिको में हुआ था.
अमरीकी मूल जनजाति का एक नेता होने के नाते उन्होंने स्पेन और उत्तरी अमरीकी दोनो के ही औपनिवेशिक नीतियों का विरोध किया था.
मैक्सिको पुलिस ने उनके परिवार के सदस्यों को मार दिया था जिसके बाद जेरोनिमो ने बदला लेने का ठान लिया था और ज़्यादा से ज़्यादा मैक्सिकन सैनिकों को मारने का फ़ैसला किया था.
कुछ ही दिनों में एक लड़ाके की तौर पर जेरोनिमो का नाम अमरीकी अधिकारियों की ज़बान पर था.
वो आख़िरकार 1886 में पकड़े गए थे.
अमरीकी सेना की दो विशिष्ट टुकड़ियों का नाम जेरोनिमों के नाम पर है.यहां तक की हवाई जहाज़ से पैराशूट के ज़रिए छलांग लगाते हुए अमरीकी सैनिक जेरोनिमो का नाम लेते हैं. यहां तक की कोई बच्चा जब कोई बहादुरी वाला काम करता था तो उस समय वो भी जेरोनिमो कह कर चिल्लाता था.
गोरे अमरीकियों का विरोध करने के कारण ही कई इतिहासकारों ने उनके जीवन का चित्रण काफ़ी हमदर्दी के साथ पेश किया है.
लेकिन चौंकाने वाली बात ये है कि अमरीकी सेना की दो विशिष्ट टुकड़ियों का नाम जेरोनिमों के नाम पर है.
यहां तक कि हवाई जहाज़ से पैराशूट के ज़रिए छलांग लगाते हुए अमरीकी सैनिक जेरोनिमो का नाम लेते हैं.
जब कोई बच्चा जब कोई बहादुरी वाला काम करता है तो उस समय वो भी जेरोनिमो कह कर चिल्लाता है.
इराक़ और अफ़ग़ानिस्तान मे भी तैनात अमरीकी सेना की कुछ टुकड़ियों ने जेरोनिमो उपनाम रखा हुआ है.
जेरोनिमो को ओकलाहोमा के फ़ोर्ट सिल में दफ़्न किया गया था.
लेकिन उनके वंशजों का कहना है कि उन्हें उनके असल घर न्यू मैक्सिको की गिला पहाड़ियों में दफ़नाया जाना चाहिए.
उनका मानना है कि जब तक उन्हें सही रीति रिवाज़ों के साथ नहीं दफ़नाया जाएगा उनकी आत्मा भटकती रहेगी.
डॉ. माया शंकर झा
कोलकाता
सन्दर्भ : बी.बी.सी. न्यूज़
Wednesday 4 May 2011
मैं ओसामा के मरने पर बहुत खुश हूँ क्यूंकि वह आतंकवादी था
मैं ओसामा के मरने पर बहुत खुश हूँ क्यूंकि वह आतंकवादी था
मैं ये स्वीकार करता हूँ कि मेरी जानकारी
बहूत ज्यादा नहीं है फिर भी मैं एक आम प्रबुद्ध भारतीय
से जानना चाहूँगा कि ओसामा बिन लादेन के मर जाने से
क्या हमें वाकई में ख़ुश होना चाहिए ?
क्या सिर्फ इसलिए कि वो एक मुसलमान था ,
या फिर इसलिए कि उसने अमेरिका के घर में जा कर उसपर हमले को अंजाम दिया ,
या फिर वो हमारा भी दुश्मन था .
इसके साथ साथ मैं ये जोड़ना चाहूँगा कि क्या उसके मरने के बाद हिंदुस्तान की
समस्या मिट गयी ...
हिंदुस्तान की बात तो छोडिये क्योंकि यहाँ तो अब कोई उधम सिंह कम्बोज बचा ही नहीं है जो जरनल डायर के बरसों गुजर जाने के बाद भी बदला
लेने के लिए इंग्लैंड पहुँच गया था .. .
क्या पूरी दुनिया में कोई एक नाम भी है जो
अमेरिका को नुक्सान पहुँचाना तो बहूत दूर की बात उसकी
दादागिरी के विरुद्ध केवल आवाज भी उठा सके ?
मैं ओसामा के मरने पर बहुत खुश हूँ ,
इसके २ कारण हैं :-
१. वह एक आतंकवादी था,
२. अमेरिका की इच्छा शक्ति जो राष्ट्र-हित एवं मानवता के हित को दर्शाता है,
आज हर अमेरिकेन गौरवान्वित महसूस कर रहा होगा कि वह अमेरिका में पैदा हुआ .
अगर ओसामा हिन्दू होता तो भी उसका वही अंजाम होता...
मैं इसको हिन्दू -मुस्लिम से नहीं जोड़ता,
राष्ट्र-हित एवं मानवता कि रक्षा सर्वोपरि है ....
हम आज भी अपने सबसे बड़े अपराधी की भीख मांग रहे हैं,
उसे जेल से छोड़ने के लिए विनय करते हैं ....
इस से दुःख कि बात और क्या हो सकती है ....
राष्ट्र दुखी है ,मेरे आँखों से आँशु निकल रहे हैं ,
फिर भी हम आदर्श कि बात करते हैं ....
काश हम भी वो कर पiते जो अमेरिका ने किया...
भले ही वह झूठ ही बोल रहा हो .....
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
मैं ये स्वीकार करता हूँ कि मेरी जानकारी
बहूत ज्यादा नहीं है फिर भी मैं एक आम प्रबुद्ध भारतीय
से जानना चाहूँगा कि ओसामा बिन लादेन के मर जाने से
क्या हमें वाकई में ख़ुश होना चाहिए ?
क्या सिर्फ इसलिए कि वो एक मुसलमान था ,
या फिर इसलिए कि उसने अमेरिका के घर में जा कर उसपर हमले को अंजाम दिया ,
या फिर वो हमारा भी दुश्मन था .
इसके साथ साथ मैं ये जोड़ना चाहूँगा कि क्या उसके मरने के बाद हिंदुस्तान की
समस्या मिट गयी ...
हिंदुस्तान की बात तो छोडिये क्योंकि यहाँ तो अब कोई उधम सिंह कम्बोज बचा ही नहीं है जो जरनल डायर के बरसों गुजर जाने के बाद भी बदला
लेने के लिए इंग्लैंड पहुँच गया था .. .
क्या पूरी दुनिया में कोई एक नाम भी है जो
अमेरिका को नुक्सान पहुँचाना तो बहूत दूर की बात उसकी
दादागिरी के विरुद्ध केवल आवाज भी उठा सके ?
मैं ओसामा के मरने पर बहुत खुश हूँ ,
इसके २ कारण हैं :-
१. वह एक आतंकवादी था,
२. अमेरिका की इच्छा शक्ति जो राष्ट्र-हित एवं मानवता के हित को दर्शाता है,
आज हर अमेरिकेन गौरवान्वित महसूस कर रहा होगा कि वह अमेरिका में पैदा हुआ .
अगर ओसामा हिन्दू होता तो भी उसका वही अंजाम होता...
मैं इसको हिन्दू -मुस्लिम से नहीं जोड़ता,
राष्ट्र-हित एवं मानवता कि रक्षा सर्वोपरि है ....
हम आज भी अपने सबसे बड़े अपराधी की भीख मांग रहे हैं,
उसे जेल से छोड़ने के लिए विनय करते हैं ....
इस से दुःख कि बात और क्या हो सकती है ....
राष्ट्र दुखी है ,मेरे आँखों से आँशु निकल रहे हैं ,
फिर भी हम आदर्श कि बात करते हैं ....
काश हम भी वो कर पiते जो अमेरिका ने किया...
भले ही वह झूठ ही बोल रहा हो .....
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
ओसामा को मिडिया प्रचार केलिए मारने की जरूरत क्या थी ?
ओसामा खुद में एक आतंक है..
ओसामा सिर्फ आतंकवादी नहीं..खुद में एक आतंक है..
पिछले कुछ सालों से वो सिर्फ एक शख्स नहीं ..नाम बन गया है..
एक ऐसा नाम जिस से पूरा विश्व दहशत में है..
मुझे नहीं लगता ओसामा के जीने मरने से कोई फर्क पड़ने वाला है..
ओबामा को अगर नींद नहीं आती होगी तो उसकी माँ शायद कहती होगी..
"सो जा ओबामा वरना ओसामा आ जाएगा.."
और ओसामा को यदि नींद नहीं आती होगी तो उसकी माँ शायद कहती होगी..
"सो जा ओसामा वरना ओबामा आ जाएगा.."
वैसे इस सम्बन्ध में दी गई तकरीबन सारी जानकारी संदिग्ध है.
पानी में दफनाना, अगर मिशन ओसामा का सीधा प्रसारण ओबामा ने देखा तो
अब तक अपनी विजय का दृष्य किसी को क्योँ नहीं दिखाया ?
पाकिस्तान को मिशन की जानकारी न होना भी संदिग्धता ही है ;
सवाल बहुत हैं, मेरे अनुसार ओबामा को बस कैद किया गया है...
या सिर्फ नाम के लिए ओसामा अध्याय बंद किया गया है ..
आगे किया योजना है यह तो वक़्त बताएगा.
क्या ये बात भरोसे लायक है कि लादेन को समंदर में दफना दिया गया?
और भी बहुत सी बातें इस सिलसिले में खास हैं जो संदिग्धता को बनाये हुए हैं ....
पर मिडिया-प्राणी को इन बातों से क्या ?
बेवकूफ़ बनने और बनाने का खेल फिर चल पड़ा है।
अमेरिका ने लादेन की मौत को सद्दाम की फांसी जैसा दर्शनीय क्यों नहीं बनाया ?
ओसामा बिन लादेन के मरने के बाद सवाल उठा है कि उसका मृत शरीर किसी ने देखा है ?
अमेरिकी प्रशासन ने उसकी बॉडी या लाश उसके घर वालों को क्यों नहीं सौंपी ?
अंतिम संस्कार के समय परिवार के लोगों को क्यों नहीं बुलाया गया ?
ओसामा को क्या इस बार सच में मारा गया है ?
हाल में लीबिया के नेता गद्दाफी की संपत्ति सारी दुनिया में सील की गयी थी ।
ओसामा की संपत्ति सील क्यों नहीं की गई ?
समझ में नहीं आता --- आखिर ओसामा को मिडिया प्रचार केलिए मारने की जरूरत क्या थी ?
सायद अमेरिका अपना भ्रम मिटाने के लिए ऐसा किया है ...
जिस प्रकार हारा जाति के राजा को झूठी जीत दिलाने के लिए बूंदी की किला बनाया गया था और उसे तोड़ कर हारा जाति के राजा खुश हो गए थे i शायद उसी प्रकार ओबामा ने अपने मन को शांति देने केलिए एवं भूतपूर्व प्रेसिडेंट के वचन को निभाने के लिए ऐसा किया है ....
यदि ऐसा नहीं करता तो दुनियां के सामने उसकी शक्ति भांप ली जाति ....
सवाल बहुत हैं, मेरे अनुसार ओबामा को बस मूर्ति-मात्र कैद किया गया है.
आगे किया योजना है यह तो वक़्त बताएगा.
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
ओसामा सिर्फ आतंकवादी नहीं..खुद में एक आतंक है..
पिछले कुछ सालों से वो सिर्फ एक शख्स नहीं ..नाम बन गया है..
एक ऐसा नाम जिस से पूरा विश्व दहशत में है..
मुझे नहीं लगता ओसामा के जीने मरने से कोई फर्क पड़ने वाला है..
ओबामा को अगर नींद नहीं आती होगी तो उसकी माँ शायद कहती होगी..
"सो जा ओबामा वरना ओसामा आ जाएगा.."
और ओसामा को यदि नींद नहीं आती होगी तो उसकी माँ शायद कहती होगी..
"सो जा ओसामा वरना ओबामा आ जाएगा.."
वैसे इस सम्बन्ध में दी गई तकरीबन सारी जानकारी संदिग्ध है.
पानी में दफनाना, अगर मिशन ओसामा का सीधा प्रसारण ओबामा ने देखा तो
अब तक अपनी विजय का दृष्य किसी को क्योँ नहीं दिखाया ?
पाकिस्तान को मिशन की जानकारी न होना भी संदिग्धता ही है ;
सवाल बहुत हैं, मेरे अनुसार ओबामा को बस कैद किया गया है...
या सिर्फ नाम के लिए ओसामा अध्याय बंद किया गया है ..
आगे किया योजना है यह तो वक़्त बताएगा.
क्या ये बात भरोसे लायक है कि लादेन को समंदर में दफना दिया गया?
और भी बहुत सी बातें इस सिलसिले में खास हैं जो संदिग्धता को बनाये हुए हैं ....
पर मिडिया-प्राणी को इन बातों से क्या ?
बेवकूफ़ बनने और बनाने का खेल फिर चल पड़ा है।
अमेरिका ने लादेन की मौत को सद्दाम की फांसी जैसा दर्शनीय क्यों नहीं बनाया ?
ओसामा बिन लादेन के मरने के बाद सवाल उठा है कि उसका मृत शरीर किसी ने देखा है ?
अमेरिकी प्रशासन ने उसकी बॉडी या लाश उसके घर वालों को क्यों नहीं सौंपी ?
अंतिम संस्कार के समय परिवार के लोगों को क्यों नहीं बुलाया गया ?
ओसामा को क्या इस बार सच में मारा गया है ?
हाल में लीबिया के नेता गद्दाफी की संपत्ति सारी दुनिया में सील की गयी थी ।
ओसामा की संपत्ति सील क्यों नहीं की गई ?
समझ में नहीं आता --- आखिर ओसामा को मिडिया प्रचार केलिए मारने की जरूरत क्या थी ?
सायद अमेरिका अपना भ्रम मिटाने के लिए ऐसा किया है ...
जिस प्रकार हारा जाति के राजा को झूठी जीत दिलाने के लिए बूंदी की किला बनाया गया था और उसे तोड़ कर हारा जाति के राजा खुश हो गए थे i शायद उसी प्रकार ओबामा ने अपने मन को शांति देने केलिए एवं भूतपूर्व प्रेसिडेंट के वचन को निभाने के लिए ऐसा किया है ....
यदि ऐसा नहीं करता तो दुनियां के सामने उसकी शक्ति भांप ली जाति ....
सवाल बहुत हैं, मेरे अनुसार ओबामा को बस मूर्ति-मात्र कैद किया गया है.
आगे किया योजना है यह तो वक़्त बताएगा.
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
शिक्षा, चरित्र और संस्कार
शिक्षा, चरित्र और संस्कार की कहानियां गढ़ने वाले ज्यादातर महापुरुष इसका वास्तविक अर्थ और शिक्षा से इसका सम्बन्ध कैसे लगा रहे हैं.. यह विरोधाभासी एवं विचारणीय है. विरोधाभास की वजह हमारी प्राथमिक शिक्षा में जीवन की उत्पत्ति डार्विन, और ओपेरिन ने हमे “योग्यतम की उत्तरजीविता” “सुव्यवस्थित” और “तथाकथित वैज्ञानिक” ढंग से सिखाई है., और जो थोडा बहुत लंगड़ा लूला सनातनी ज्ञान हमे मिल गया वह हमारी मिथ्यभासी धार्मिक ग्रंथों से… (जी हाँ यही वास्तविक स्थिति है धार्मिक और सांस्कृतिक विरासत का.) इसी विरोधाभास की वजह से “यदि योग्यतम ही श्रेष्ठ है तो कोई किसी गरीब की सहायता करने की बजाये किसी शक्तिशाली की दलाली करना ही पसंद करेगा.” ये है भ्रष्टाचार की जड़. ज्यादातर चरित्र और संस्कार का ढोल पीटने वाले महापुरुष यौन क्रियाओं और मनोभावों के दमन को चरित्र की संज्ञा देते हैं.. यह विरोधाभास हमारे लूले लंगड़े सनातनी ज्ञान की शक्ति नगण्य बना देता है. उदहारण कृष्ण की 16800 रानियाँ थीं.. और किशोरावस्था में गोपिकाओं के साथ रास-लीला जैसी कल्पित कथाओं की देन है (कपोल कल्पित इसलिए क्योंकि यदि इसे सत्य मान लिया जाए तो आप अंदाजा लगा सकते हैं…) यदि विद्यार्थी जीवन की सनातनी परिकल्पना “काकचेष्टा, वकोध्यानम, स्वान-निद्रा तथैव च, अल्पहारी गृहस्त्यागी विद्यार्थिनः पञ्च लक्षणं” से विलग विदेशी प्रभावों (ज्यादातर नक़ल या अंधभक्ति ) को ही शिक्षा और विकास का आधार और परिभाषा मान लिया जाये तो मानसिक विरोधाभास उसी ओर जायेगा जिसके प्रेरण और आकर्षण अधिक होगा. ऐसे में संस्कारों की या चरित्र की कल्पना सिर्फ शाब्दिक ही रह जाती है. नतीजा सनातनी संस्कृति में जिस राजनीति का उद्देश्य जनकल्याण होना चाहिए विदेशी शक्तिशाली पराक्रम और बाजारीक व्यभिचार से वह राजनीति आज बाजारू वेश्या बन के रह गयी है… ये सिर्फ उदहारण हैं… और इसी पश्चिमीकरण का आप, मै और सभी किसी न किसी रूप में समर्थन कर ही रहे हैं तो क्यों न हम संस्कारिक मूल्यों को भी पश्चिमी तराजू में तौल कर ही निर्धारित करें.
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
भारत भारती समाज के लिए ,
डॉ. माया शंकर झा ,
कोलकाता
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)