स्वतन्त्रता दिवस की बधाई

60 नौनिहालों की मौत : यूपी के मुख्यमंत्री पर हत्या का मुक़दमा चल

13 अगस्त 2017

प्रेस रिलीज़

      सोशलिस्ट पार्टी (इंडिया) गोरखपुर के बाबा राघवदास (बीआरडी) अस्पताल में 5 दिनों में इंसेफलाइटिस (दिमागी बुखार) से पीड़ित 60 बच्चों की मौत के मामले में उत्तर प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री को सीधे जिम्मेदार मानती है। योगी आदित्यनाथ पिछले कई लोकसभा चुनावों में गोरखपुर से सांसद रहे हैं. (दिमागी बुखार) का प्रकोप गोरखपुर इलाके में पिछले कई सालों से जारी है. फिलहाल वे यूपी के मुख्यमंत्री हैं. उन्होंने घटना के दो दिन पहले ही अस्पताल का दौरा किया था. इसके बावजूद ऑक्सीजन की कमी से इतने नौनिहालों की मौत हो गई. सवाल है कि क्या दौरे के दौरान स्वास्थ्य महकमे के अधिकारियों ने या अस्पताल प्रबंधक ने उन्हें अस्पताल में ऑक्सीजन की कमी के बारे में नहीं बताया था? क्या सूबे के स्वास्थ्य मंत्री सिद्धार्थनाथ सिंह ने उस चिट्ठी का जिक्र नहीं किया था जो ऑक्सीजन सप्लाई करने वाली कंपनी पुष्पा सेल्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड ने स्वास्थ्य मंत्री को लिखी थी? चिट्ठी में साफ तौर पर लिखा था कि कंपनी आगे अस्पताल में ऑक्सीजन की सप्लाई नहीं कर पाएगी। (भुगतान केवल 60 लाख रुपयों का था. इस रकम से कहीं ज्यादा तो मुख्यमंत्री ने मुख्यमंत्री आवास का 'शुद्धिकरण' कराने में खर्च कर दिया होगा.) इसके बावजूद मुख्यमंत्री और स्वास्थ्य मंत्री आक्सीज़न की सप्लाई सुनिश्चित नहीं करते. ऊपर से मुख्यमंत्री और स्वास्थ्य मंत्री दोनों पूरे मामले में निर्लज्जतापूर्वक लीपापोती और गलतबयानी करते हैं. अगर बच्चों की मौत आक्सीज़न की कमी से नहीं अन्य कारणों से हुई, जैसा कि स्वास्थ्य मंत्री कहते हैं, तो क्या अन्य कारणों से मौत रोकना सरकार की ज़िम्मेदारी नहीं है? क्या पिछली सरकारों के कार्यकाल या पिछले अगस्त महीने में होने वाली मौतों का आंकड़ा देने से इस सरकार के कार्यकाल या इस अगस्त महीने में होने वाली मौतों की ज़िम्मेदारी कम हो हो जाती है?    

      ज़ाहिर है, यह सामान्य लापरवाही का मामला नहीं है. सोशलिस्ट पार्टी मानती है कि यह 60 बच्चों की हत्या का आपराधिक मामला है. उच्चतम न्यायालय को तुरंत संज्ञान लेकर यूपी के मुख्यमंत्री और स्वास्थ्य मंत्री पर हत्या का मुक़दमा चलाना चाहिए. या फिर जनहित में किसी नागरिक संगठन अथवा वकील द्वारा यह मुक़दमा दायर किया जाना चाहिए. ताकि इवेंट और इमेज मैनेजमेंट को ही राजनीति मानाने वालों को कड़ा सबक और बच्चों के मता-पिता व परिजनों को न्याय मिल सके.    

     

डॉ. प्रेम सिंह

अध्यक्ष

The Independence And Gandhi : In The Clutches Of Neo-liberalism

Dr. Prem Singh

The RSS did not participate in the freedom struggle, and that it was responsible for Gandhi’s assassination, are facts that are not new. These arguments have been used repeatedly against the RSS since the Independence of India in 1947. The RSS does not claim a stake in the freedom struggle, but refutes the accusation of being party to Gandhi’s assassination. Ever since Modi government was formed at the centre, the secular camp has vociferously taken up these two points, and the last few months have indeed seen an intensification of this endeavour. Perhaps the camp feels that by emphasizing these two accusations repeatedly, it will discredit the RSS in the eyes of the people and gain political mileage in the bargain. However this thought process needs to be seriously deliberated upon. The reason is that the manner and the intent with which the secular camp raises these two points to attack the RSS, has little to do with the Independence or Gandhi. The intervention of the secular camp would have been significant only if it had raised the serious question pertaining to a contemporary fact – how and why did Narendra Modi-led BJP form a majority government at the centre despite its history of treason against the freedom movement and the act of assassinating Gandhi? The secular camp ought to have attempted a serious investigation as to whether the Independence and Gandhi have actually lost relevance for the people of India? If yes, then what are the reasons? The investigation requires serious self-introspection; an understanding of how it is itself responsible for this situation, then, to eventually question itself – whether it, on its own part, really values the Independence of the country and Gandhi?

The secular camp, which considers itself above all questions, can get away with the argument that the present government had merely 31 percent voters while the remaining majority of the country believes in the Independence and Gandhi; and that it is this very constituency which secularists seek to caution against the RSS. Now, the fact that the 31 percent citizens have veered away from the Independence and Gandhi should in itself be a serious cause of worry for the secular camp, for it constitutes a significant section of society. The secular camp which bears the responsibility of the nation at ideological and institutional level cannot function in terms of ‘mine-thine’ social-political divisions. The other question is, how can the secular camp assume that all those who did not vote for BJP, actually value the Independence and Gandhi? The truth is that most of the political parties that have garnered the remaining 69 percent of the votes are in some measure or another, votaries of neo-liberalism. It doesn’t need to be elaborated that the votaries of neo-liberalism will be, in material and moral spirit, anti-Independence as well as anti-Gandhi. Therefore, the question as to how the RSS-BJP combine, despite being against the Independence and Gandhi, could form a majority government, raises an accusing finger elsewhere too; at all the historic lapses, blunders and the blinking of eyes on the part of the secularists. Despite their reluctance to face a bitter reality, the secularists owe the people of the country their democratic right to know the truth; a certain transparency regarding political/economic positions taken by the secular camp. In other words, the question is likely to singe the ones who are raising it. But for the sake of democracy and the cause of the common people there should be no harm and no fear in such singeing and self-assessment even if it is injurious to one’s own image.

It is not imperative for all or anyone to essentially believe in Gandhi. But it is not correct for detractors of Gandhi to seek political mileage by constantly upbraiding the RSS for his assassination. Gandhi’s opponent Mayawati and dalit intellectuals, who propagate dalit identity, do not make a hue and cry about his assassination. The same is true for the Independence. It is not essential that everybody has to believe in the freedom struggle of India and the values accrued during it. But then such people should not castigate RSS for not participating in the freedom struggle.

First, the case of the Independence; it is important before and above Gandhi. For a number of years even serious scholarship failed to notice that after 1991, with beginning of implementation of the new economic policies heralding neo-liberal slavery, there arose, simultaneously, a powerful resentment across the nation to oppose it. On the one hand laws were being passed one after the other (mostly through ordinances) against the basic spirit of the Constitution, on the other hand, those very laws were being vehemently opposed. Some of these opposing voices came from the mainstream politics also. Even the RSS-formed Swadeshi Jagran Manch expressed concerns over the policies that threatened to pawn the nation’s Independence. This protest was rather scattered and non-political. But a cohesive understanding and the need for an alternative politics had been generated by means of these protests by 1995. Equipped with the spirit of the Independence, this alternative politics stood in direct confrontation against the Congress, the BJP and the NGOs subsisting on foreign aid. But soon enough the supposed third force political parties including communist parties agreed to follow the path marked out by neo-liberalism. P Chidambaram was the finance minister in the Deve Gowda’s government. And the world is very much aware of the events in Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal.

It was an unequal battle between the two fundamentally unequal parties, but the struggle against neo-imperialism was advancing in a systematic and strong manner. Some of the best minds of our times and a large section of the youth were involved in it at the cost of their careers and health. Despite Atal Behari’s government and the two of Manmohan Singh governments that followed it, the struggle against neo-imperialism stayed strong. The country was almost flooded with anti-neo-imperialist pamphlets, tracts, folders, little magazines, booklets and books. But just then came the clarion call of the “second freedom”. India Against Corruption (IAC), Aam Aadmi Party and mainstream media manufactured a false contender against the Congress, and by taking along in its wake diverse elements such as RSS and communists, socialists, Gandhians, corporate houses, civil society, Ramdev-Sri Sri Ravi Shankar they destroyed the struggle against neo-imperialism. As soon as Anna Hazare put the glass of juice to his lips to break his fast at Ramlila Maidan he silenced the debate/discussions of neo-imperialist slavery from the ambit of political discourse. In the past two decades, the myriad voices echoing through the country – azadi bachao, videshi kampniyan bharat chhodo, WTO bharat chhodo – were drowned in the name of an imagined mirage of ‘second freedom’. The meaning of alternative politics was reduced to a matter of wins and losses between various neo-liberal parties; the noose of neo-imperialist slavery thus tightened even further.

Actually, the hard-earned Independence began to be disregarded in terms of spirit and values even from the point of its achievement in 1947. The partition of the country was the biggest blow. The Independence, accomplished after the protracted struggle and sacrifices of the people of India, was discredited by the progressive camp as a false, incomplete and compromised result of international developments and so on. One argument fielded was that the Independence could have easily been won by means of violence, instead of the long-drawn non-violent one. Though this very mind-set had secretly breathed a sigh of relief that lakhs of rebels, who sacrificed their lives, were defeated in 1857; because they happened to be too backward for their tastes. Even today, the Indian intelligentsia, whether Marxists or modernists, are still horrified with the thought that if 1857 had been successful, the country would have remained engulfed in ignorance as it was before the ascendance of the British. The RSS was not satisfied with ‘Gandhi Vadh’. It did not forgive Gandhi for opposing the Partition and advocating Hindu-Muslin unity. Its mission was to make India ‘Muslim free’, that is, once again dividing apart the country and society. It launched a petty campaign against not just Gandhi but also Nehru and the Congress, the platform of India’s freedom struggle. In this manner it became ‘nationalist’ before as well as after the Independence while remaining completely divorced from the task of nation-building.

It was, as if, the process of gaining the Independence became a crime in free India; and the leaders of the nationalist struggle – criminals! In fact, those who put the very achievement of the Independence in the dock displayed a complete disregard for the struggle of the Indian people; and perceived them as worthless who did not help in making a ‘communist nation’ or a ‘Hindu nation’ of their fantasy; that too without ousting the British! Both these camps are fighting over Bhagat Singh these days, who had considered liberation from the British to be the first goal, and laid down his life for it. If this utterly ‘denigrated’ Independence became the alibi for rampant loot by opportunists and corrupt politicians, businessmen and officers, it should not surprise us. In this state, people have often repeated the comment “the British were better.” Since the Independence has no currency in our national/civil life people have ignored the charge of treason against the RSS, and promptly voted a BJP government to power.

Now let us take the case of Gandhi’s assassination. Secularists, especially the communists, may use Gandhi’s assassination strategically, but they have been forerunners along with the Congress, in assassinating his ideas. During the freedom struggle itself they had started calling Gandhi a bourgeois, reactionary, pedestrian peddler of superstitions and so on. After the Independence, the Congress first used him as a shield for the party, and later for the family rule. Narsimha Rao and Manmohan Singh falsely linked neo-liberalism to Gandhi’s dreams. Now the BJP is doing the same thing. The existing dalit outrage targets Gandhi already. Libertarians want to put everything on hold to finish off Gandhi first. Ever since the backward discourse has taken off, Gandhi is their very first target. An enthusiastic backward polemicist is likely to claim that if Gandhi weren’t there, Brahmanism would have been long eradicated from India society. So, Gandhi shouldn’t have been there at all! The absurd excess of blind anti-Gandhi sentiment is in that Gandhi is held responsible for all kinds of problems even after his death. The emergent solidarity of communist-dalit-libertarian intellectuals is basically based on anti-Gandhi sentiment. Even though the one result of this solidarity is to pull Ambedkar into a liaison with neo-liberalism. Muslims still have some respect for Gandhi. But in this era of fanaticism, it may not last long. Like the Independence, Gandhi stands devalued in the country. Then why would people protest against the RSS for Gandhi’s killing?

Let us discuss a little more about Gandhi’s assassination though it will be a bit of a digression. Gandhi’s assassination has been variously interpreted. Lohia’s interpretation is still the most important among them. Such interpretations of Gandhi’s assassination are no longer relevant. One simple explanation would be that it was an event that happened during the course of the Partition of India. More than ten lakh people died during the riots of Partition. In the course of things if Gandhi was killed too, it is not such an earth shattering tragedy. He had abjured the celebrations of the Independence and was touring the riot-affected areas instead. There some rioter could have easily accomplice Nathuram Godse’s work. Gandhi’s killer was convicted by a court of law; and in legal parlance, Gandhi got justice. The government carried out his funeral procession with full state honours, and constructed a fabulous memorial where leaders from all over the world come to pay their tributes to him. The Congress governmentalized him and created all kinds of havens for his followers. And all this, when crores of victims of displacement, murder and rape received no justice. While Gandhi lived, he was always tormented by such brutalities, discriminations and injustices. Therefore, perhaps, it is not appropriate to keep discussing Gandhi’s assassination. Instead a two-fold consolation can be drawn from his assassination. First, the positive consolation, that he sacrificed his life to redeem the bloodstained abominations of the leadership of those times. Second, the negative one, that at least one big leader also lost his life in the tragedy of the Partition!

Therefore, it could be said that the secular camp, while demonstrating against RSS’s treason, is itself not entirely driven by the true spirit of the Independence. Even when it attacks the RSS on the issue of Gandhi’s assassination, it cannot bring itself to respect Gandhi. The style of defamation that the NGO don Arvind Kejriwal picked up from the RSS and played out like a master craftsman, the secular camp wishes to employ the same to defame the RSS to seize power. This style denigrates both : the Independence and indeed, Gandhi.

Do such attacks on the RSS by the secular camp stop communalism or even lessen it? This is a serious question that needs to be investigated because the secular camp claims that neo-liberalism can be tackled later; communalism needs to be fought urgently. While it is true that the secularists are staunch opponents of the communal RSS-BJP, it is also true that they never oppose political parties and individuals guilty of communalism – from Congress to Kejriwal. The BJP’s mass base, on the basis of this general election results, is approximately one-fourth of the total. To oppose this one-fourth while pandering to the communalism of the remaining three-fourth, is to force the entire society into the vicious process of communalism. These are the dangers of the communal politics of the secular camp that I wish to argue about. Two examples may be considered here.

Despite having a majority government in the centre, when BJP suffered a humiliating defeat in Delhi, courtesy Kejriwal, the secular camp could hardly contain its happiness. A lot of communist friends walked with a spring in their steps, holding Congress in one hand and Kejriwal in the other. Kejriwal has been in the profession of ‘social service’ with foreign aid for a long time. During that time he did not once open his mouth against the horrendous anti-Sikh riots in 1984, or against the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, or against the 2002 Gujarat riots. Kejriwal’s NGO guru, Anna Hazare first praised Modi from Jantar Mantar, and Modi acknowledged this in a personal letter. Elements like Ramdev and Sri Sri, who run businesses of religion, meditation, spirituality, yoga and Ayurveda, were his associates. The organizational aspect of the India Against Corruption’s campaign was handled by the RSS. When the Aam Aadmi Party was formed, it had a profusion of communal and lumpen elements. When western Uttar Pradesh was engulfed in the fires of communal riots, the victor Kejriwal was offering thanks to the almighty by stoking the fires in the ‘havan-kund’. Contesting from Banaras, he ensured Modi’s victory. For this he sought blessings of Baba Vishwanath by visiting the temple, and the Ganges by taking a holy dip. It is a matter of grave concern that after the implementation of the model code of conduct, the blatant displays of religious ritualism do not invite cancellation of candidature by the Election Commission of India.

During the mid-term Assembly elections, held in Delhi after the resignation of Kejriwal, the city was gripped by communal tension. The messages that were relayed on radio broadcasts by recognized political parties, focused on the attempts to aggravate the communal situation in Delhi by communal forces. There were also appeals to defeat the communal forces in the elections. But the BJP and AAP broadcasts contained not one word about the communal incidents. Later, the chief minister of Delhi very graciously gave his approval to rename Aurangzeb Road. He then collaborated with Modi to arrange Sri Sri’s festivities on the banks of Yamuna. The Justice Sachar Committee Report on the state of minorities in the country will complete ten years this November. With the exception of BJP and AAP, all big and small parties have issued statements regarding its implementation. These are merely statement of facts known to the public. It may be noted that the shades of communal politics and shades of communal collaboration of earlier secular leaders took a while to unravel. For a long time, they kept up the pressure of secularism on Jan Sangh/BJP. But for Kejriwal and his votaries there is no difference between secularism and communalism; whichever props them to power is acceptable to them. The explanation is obvious. AAP has not emerged out of any political ideology, organization or struggle; making use of only popular strategies.

The second example is from Bihar. The defeat of the BJP here was heralded by the secular camp as the people’s rejection of the brahminical and communal forces. Without going into too many details, some facts may be observed here. Nitish Kumar and his party allied with RSS/BJP for 16 years. This alliance continued through the 2002 Muslim genocide in Gujarat. The senior JDU leader was the co-coordinator of NDA. He opposed the decision to part ways with BJP. As such the credit for sowing the seeds of communalism in the, by and large, secular terrain of Bihar goes entirely to Janata Dal United. Therefore, the secular camp’s argument that neo-liberalism will be fought against later whereas communalism needs to be fought now, is absolutely misplaced and misleading.

When, and if, the BJP is ousted, will the secular camp honour its intentions to bring neo-liberalism to a close? Or to challenge it, at least? Is it their policy and avowed intent? This is the proverbial ‘yaksha prashna’ of India’s contemporary politics. Any politics that is practiced without answering it is constitutionally invalid. In polite language it is simply called the politics of power. Within the ambit of neo-liberalism, it really doesn’t matter whether the politics of power is practiced by either the communal or the secular camp. A quick glance at the current political landscape reveals the answer to the aforementioned ‘yaksha prashna’. The orientation and positioning of the active players in contemporary politics is clearly neo-liberal. About five years back I had written that Modi, born of the Sangh’s womb, despite all the hype, would ultimately suffocate and wither in Gujarat. But the corporate conglomerate, the upholders of neo-liberalism, backed him up, and helped him rise to the PM office. Kejriwal is the direct product of neo-liberalism. It is clear to the corporate sector that the politicians of the so-called third front cannot be trusted at the Centre; given their social grounding, they cannot fast forward the nation swiftly on the path of neo-liberalism like the Congress or BJP. Which is why the corporate sector raised its own leader. Kejriwal is watched over by the Magsaysay award house along with corporate houses and national-international NGOs. The secular camp’s support to the Congress could still be acceptable to a degree but, leave alone the intent and purpose, the basic political understanding of the kind of secular camp that has mushroomed around Kejriwal, is utterly suspect. It is seemingly a very happy development for them given that Kejriwal has defeated Modi in international popularity! The absolute height of the banckruptcy of political wisdom is achieved when the secular camp begins to see Kejriwal as a viable alternative to Modi as a PM candidate.

It is true that over the past three decades it has become not only difficult, but well nigh impossible to imagine a reversal and a breaking away from the clutches of neo-liberalism. International conditions and pressures too have had a role to play in this situation. In such a scenario, it doesn’t appear as if any easy resolution can be found. The secular camp can say that there is little option and that it cannot help but practice politics within the neo-liberal framework. It can also say, and indeed it does say, that the neo-liberal shackles cannot be broken without getting inside the system. It also reminds people of its achievements, such as Right to Information Act, MNREGA, Tribal Forest Rights Act, Land Acquisition Act and so on. But the politicians who wish to practice politics within the corporate framework, the intellectuals who have to head institutions, the writers and artists who have to win awards, the experts/NGO folks who have to be advisers to the governemental committees, the actors and players who have to be brand ambassadors — they should say that along with such superficial reliefs, neo-liberal system will continue to exist. This straight away indicates that the World Bank, International Monitary Fund, World Trade Organisation, multinational companies, corporate houses will continue to dictate decision-making; agreements like Dunkel and India-America Nuclear deal, which compromise the autonomy of the nation, will continue to happen; disinvestment will continue in public sector enterpirses, all services from education to defence will be privatised; international companies like Carrefour, Wall Mart, Tesko will increase their business in the retail sector; debts of big corporate houses will be written off; natural resources will continue to be plundered; towns and villages will continue to be submerged, and their denizens will continue to be displaced; farmers and small entrepreneurs will conitnue to commit suicide; legions of innumerable people will continue to be unemployed; land and labour will be subjected to even more ruthless exploitation; the abyss of economic hardship will be bottomless; five hundred smart cities and more will come up; citizens’ dignity/security/right to expression will no longer be legally guaranteed; the intervention of police/security forces/mafia will continue to rise in civil life . … This list of the denigration of our civil, social, cultural, educational, religious life at the hands of corporate companies can go on.

It is useless to blame the corporate sector. It does not love the communal BJP. It has been closely watching politicians and parties for the past three decades. It has also been watching the civil society that has come up in these decades. If it is convinced that neo-liberalism will continue to have unbridled reign in the name of secularism, it will replace the RSS/BJP overnight. Such an assurance will be given to the corporate by the secular camp. In this process the genuine movements that originated against neo-imperialist slavery would be pushed into the margins, to weaken, or to die away. In other words, the real fighters against neo-imperialism will become less visible or be merged into shades of neo-imperialism. The communal camp does not have that strength to bring this about. The responsibility of making a difference, this way or that, lies only with the secular camp.

Dr. Prem Singh Dept. of Hindi University of Delhi. Visiting Professor Center of Eastern Languages and Cultures Dept. of Indology, Sofia University. Former Fellow Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla

On Congress Socialist Party

(3 April 1903 – 29 October 1988)

Kamla Devi Chattopadhyay

I came out late 1933 just when the Congress was assembling in Bombay. There was only two events that i considered of note at that session: Gandhiji's dramatic announcement that he was going to resign from the congress membership and he was leaving Sabarmati Ashram vowing to return there only after Swaraj came. Though Swaraj did come, to him it was a shattered one, and he never did go back again. The other was a resolution to demand a Constituent Assembly for framing the future National Constitution for India.

At this period Marxism was in the air. Some practical reality to it had been provided by the triumphant rise of Soviet Russia overcoming the combined onslaught of the capitalist countries. This had been capped by Pandit Nehru's account of this trip to the new Workers Republic. Communism was yet a ripple in the vast mass of India. One also felt the need for a more precise objective of freedom in clearer pragmatic terms. True Gandhiji had outlined the Swaraj of his dream, which was however far from our practising goals, nor was our immediate path marked by such typical landmarks as he indicated.

In this context Marxism seemed to provide the precise and clear cut economic and social analysis, the idea of an integrated classless society, to a feudal-stricken, caste - ridden country. To the youth it held keen allure.

When I came out of prison the Socialist Party had already beed formed. It is said to have emerged in the prison cells with Jayaprakash, Minoo Masani, Yusuf Meharally, etc. Later Narendra Dev, Purshoottam Tricumdas and other intellectuals joined, as also large numbers of young people who were excited by Marxism, and eager for action. Before the first Socialist conference, Minoo Masani as Party Secretry, discussed the proposed move with Pandit Nehru who recorded in a letter his pleasure that a Socialist group would function in the Congress and influence the ideology of that body and country. Neharu's reaction was sought as in his political writings Nehru depicted the Indian struggle in a world perspective, stressing the clash of class interests as part of a global phenomenon. But at no stage did he instigate, encourage or support the party as such nor did the party seek his patronage.

The Socialist Party declared its ideology as Marxist which would determine its programme so as to fulfill its task. At the same time it made it clear that the party as such did not represent any single class. On the country it would unite on its platform all anti-imperialist elements to overthrow it and establish real Swaraj. It acknowledge the National Congress as the rightful vehicle of the Indian people's freedom struggle and therefore to stay within it.

The task within the Congress would be to help prepare the congress for mass struggle. To ensure this, membership of the congress was made obligatory for anyone who wished to join the party, which was now appropriately titled the Congress Socialist Party. The members were also enjoined to show respect to the national leaders and maintain good relations with them.

Unexpectedly enough Gandhiji welcomed the Party within the Congress wanting to bring various streams of thought into the broad national movement. He however expressed that class was not the right path. I could assume thar this was an expression of his acceptance of our bona-fides whatever the ideological differences may be with his habitual liberalism.

With the elder leaders who called themselves Gandhi-ites' it was a different story. They took the formation of the Socialist Party as a challenge to Gandhiji's leadership and therefore his ideas. They passed a resolution in two successive working committee meetings, dissociating the congress from class war, appropriation of private property and the like, as these posed a threat to non-violence.

I Joined the Party and settled down in Mangalore where in the rural areas I could create base for sound grass-root work and organise social and economic group for full participation in community service. The Seva Dal was still under a ban, do its activities were at a standstill, and I could give undivided attention to this.

Labour and peasant unions were unknown in my region at the time. I could concentrate more effectively on the former though industrial and processing establishment were small. A number of unions were soon humming through the districts.

The Worker's Unions lent a piquancy to the situation, particularly in the women-labour unions. The districts had large concentrations of women labour, cashew nut and coffee curing. Very Soon a crisis rose in the cashew nut factories. The product were all for export and greatest emphasis was on the neat, clean look of each nut. For this, the thin skin clinging to the nut used to be scraped out by the workers with their nails. This naturally bruised the fingers. Repeated request for extra sharp knives were ignored. So a strike was called. It was quite an event and stirred up the entire district, especially women, whose sympathies were roused. This was my first taste of conducting a labour strike and prove quite an experience. We had however a resounding victory.

The Socialist Party grew rapidly, attracting the younger elements from all walks of life, also some maturer ones. A fresh spirit seemed injected into our otherwise humdrum life, since Satyagraha had been called off by Gandhiji after his release in 1933, after which the ban on the congress had been lifted. The political tempo had therefore been a low key.

In 1936 Pandit Nehru took over as Congress President. This created great expectations among the youth. It was also hoped that the working relations between the Congress and the Congress Socialist Party would become congenial. This hope was accentuated when Pandit Nehru took three members of the Socialist Party into his working committee, which seemed like a break through, a concrete sign that socialist were acceptable, not just tolerated. They were Shri Jayaprakash Narayan, Acharya Narendra Dev and Achyuth Patwardhan. Apart from this gesture, Panditji had not indicated any further leanings towards, or visible sympathy with the Socialist Party. 

India and Socialism

Jay Prakash Narayan

What the Congress Socialist Party Stands For?

The objects of the Congress Socialist Party, as laid down in its constitution, are "the achievement of complete independence, in the sense of separation from the British Empire, and the establishment of a socialist society."

This is direct and simple enough. The Party has two objects: The first is the same as that of the Indian National Congress, except that the Party wishes to make it clear that the complete independence of India must include separation from the British Empire.

The second object of the Party means that independent India must reorganise its economic life on a socialist basis.

Why?

The question at bottom is one of the values and ultimate objectives, which once determined, the rest becomes a matter of logical sequence.

If the ultimate objective is to the masses politically and economically free, to make them prosperous and happy, to free them from all manner of exploitation, to give them unfettered opportunity for development, then, Socialism becomes a goal to which one must irresistibly be drawn. If again, the objective is to take hold of the chaotic and conflicting forces of society and to fashion the latter according to the ideal of utmost social good and to harness of all conscious directives of human intelligence in the service of the commonwealth, then, again, Socialism becomes an inescapable destination.

If, then, these be our objectives, it should take little argument to show that Socialism is as definitely "indicated" in India as elsewhere. In India too there is poverty, nay, starvation, on the one hand and wealth and luxury on the other; in India too there is exploitation; the means of production here also are in private hands. That is, the root evil of modern society, namely, economic and social inequality, exists in India too as does its cause; the exploitation of the great many by the very few.

And this is not the result of British rule. It is independent of it and will continue even after it. The ending of the foreign domination would not automatically solve India's problem of poverty; would not put a stop to the exploitation of the vast many;  would not in fact, mean the accomplishment  of any of the objectives which we have started with. Economic freedom is also indispensable. As far as we socialist are concerned economic freedom means only one thing to us- Socialism Without Socialism, economic freedom would be sham, and moonshine.

The present programme of the Congress falls far short of these ideals. It might ameliorate the conditions of the masses to a certain extent, but it will neither rid them of exploitation not out them in power. Far from effecting revolutionary changes in it, it leaves the economic structure of society intact. It leaves the means of production in the hand of private individuals, except in the sphere of key industries. The entire economic organisation, based as it is on the exploitation of the poor and middle classes, is preserved. This is not economic freedom. The preamble and substance of the Karachi Resolution are at wide variance with each other. What we endeavour to do is to remove this variance and bring them close together. When the congress professes the economic freedom of the masses, let it distinctly state what that freedom means.

The Congress may be unprepared for the acceptance of such a minimum programme as we advocate. But it is one thing to say that we are not ready for any further definition of our goal- which of course may be disputed- and quite another, as latterly repeated ad nauseam, that Socialism is moonshine; that it is unsuited to the Indian climate; that Indian socialist are merely adventuring in the realm of theory; that they are only quoting a rusty old German Jew who called himself Karl Heinrich Marx; and the rest of the drivel.

I do not desire to suggest that at Karachi, the Congress should have outlined a full-grown programme of Socialism. What it must do however, is to accept such a minimum economic programme as well, when put to practice, free the masses from economic exploitation and transfer full political and economic power into their hands.

It is such a programme that the Congress Socialist Party is advocating.

What, then does the Congress Socialist Party propose? What must the Swaraj Government do in addition to nationalising key industries in order to realise the economic freedom of the masses; in order to rid them of exploitation, injustice, suffering, poverty, ignorance?

The measures that are necessary, in the opinion of the party to achieve this, are clearly set forth in the Objectives section of the Programme of the All-India Congress Socialist Party.

Here they are:

1. Transfer of all power to the producing masses.
2. Development of the economic life of the country to be planned and controlled by the state.
3. Socialisation of key and principal industries (e.g., Steel, Cotton, Jute, Railways, Shipping, Plantation, Mines), Banks, Insurance and Public Utilities, with a view to the progressive socialization of all the instruments of production, distribution and exchange.
4. State monopoly of foreign trade.
5. Organisation of co-operatives for production, distribution and credit in the unsocialized sector of economic life.
6. Elimination of princes and landlords and all other classes of exploiters without compensation.
7. Redistribution of land to peasants.
8. Encourgement and promotion of co-operative and collective farming by the State.
9. Liquidation of debts owing by peasants and workers.
10. Recognition of the right to work or maintenance by the State.
11. "To everyone according to his needs and from every one according to his capacity" to be the basis ultimately of distribution and production of economic goods.
12. Adult franchise on a functional basis.
13. No Support to or discrimination between religions bye the state and no recognition of any distinction based on caste or community. 
14. No discrimination between the sexes by the State.
15. Repudiation of the so-called Public Debt of India.

There are fifteen measures as we see. They look forbidding; appear to be too drastic; too extreme; too foreign sounding. They are, in fact, simple enough, reasonable enough, just and practicable enough. And as for their foreign sound-well, they sound no more foreign than the constituent Assembly, the Legislative Council, the Tariff Board, the siren of the cotton mills or the hooting of the latest cadillac (shall we say?)

They are all intended to establish the rather simple principle that the abolition of private ownership, of functional property, which as we saw, was the real villain of the piece-the source of all our evils, or most of them. They are further intended to establish the most eminently reasonable of principles of social life-social planning.

"संविधान विरोधी सत्ता छोड़ो" रैली

10 अगस्त 2017

अगस्त क्रांति की 75वीं सालगिरह पर सोशलिस्ट पार्टी (इंडिया) की रैली सोशलिस्ट पार्टी (इंडिया) ने 9 अगस्त 2017 भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन की 75वीं सालगिरह पर "संविधान विरोधी सत्ता छोड़ो" रैली का आयोजन किया। इस मौके पर पार्टी के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष डॉ प्रेम सिंह के नेतृत्व में मंडी हाऊस से 

जंतर-मंतर तक एक रैली का आयोजन किया गया। रैली को वरिष्ठ पत्रकार कुलदीप नैयर ने हरी झंडी दिखाकर रवाना किया। उहोनें उस दिन और दौर को याद करते हुए कहा कि अगस्त क्रांति के आदर्शों को हमें याद रखना चाहिए. वह पूरे भारत वासियों का संघर्ष था और विभाजनकारी शक्तियां अलग-थलग पद गई थीं. सोशलिस्ट पार्टी ने अगस्त क्रांति की मशाल को लोगों के बीच ले जाने जो जरूरी काम किया है उसकी मैं तारीफ करता हूँ. रैली में सैकड़ों की तादाद में पार्टी कार्यकर्ता और सहमना साथियों ने शिरकत की। इस मौके पर युवाओँ की अच्छी खासी भागीदारी रही। तमाम लोग ज़ोरदार बारिश के बावजूद पूरे उत्साह से नारे लगाते नज़र आए।

सोशलिस्ट पार्टी (इंडिया) का मकसद देश वासियों तक ये संदेश पहुंचाना था कि सरकारों द्वारा नीति-निर्धारण का काम संविधान में उल्लिखित "राज्य के नीति निर्देशक तत्वों" के आधार पर हो ना कि नवउदारवाद शक्तियों के इशारे पर। सोशलिस्ट पार्ट 'भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन' की 75वीं वर्षगांठ पर संविधान की प्रस्तावना में उल्लिखित समाजवादी, धर्मनिरपेक्ष और लोकतांत्रिक भारत निर्माण के संकल्प पर मंडरा रहे खतरे से भी देश की जनता को सावधान करना चाहती है। साथ ही आज़ादी के आंदोलन के मूल्यों को कमजोर करने वाली सरकारों को चुनौती भी देती है।  

समाजवादी चिंतक डॉ राम मनोहर लोहिया ने कहा था कि '9 अगस्त का दिन हम भारतवासियों के जीवन की महान घटना है, 15 अगस्त भारत के राज्य का दिन है जबकि 9 अगस्त भारत की जनता का दिन है।' डॉ लोहिया भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन के 50 साल पूरे होने पर 26 जनवरी से भी बड़ा समारोह करना चाहते थे। डॉ लोहिया के इसी सपने को साकार करने के लिए सोशलिस्ट पार्टी इंडिया ने भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन की 75वीं वर्षगांठ पर एक बड़ी रैली और जनसभा का आयोजन किया।

'संविधान विरोधी सत्ता छोड़ो' रैली जब जंतर-मंतर पहुंची तो एक जनसभा में तब्दील हो गई। पार्टी के वरिष्ठ नेताओं के अलावा सोशलिस्ट युवजन सभा के साथी और दसरे समाजवादी बुद्धिजीवी भी सभा में मौजूद रहे। सभा की अध्यक्षता वरिष्ठ समाजवादी और पार्ट के उपाध्यक्ष बलवंत सिंह खेड़ा ने की जबकि पार्टी के वरिष्ठ सदस्य पन्नालाल सुराणा मंच पर मौजूद रहे।

जंतर-मंतर की जनसभा में सोशलिस्ट पार्टी (इंडिया) के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष डॉ प्रेम सिंह, पार्टी के उपाध्यक्ष बलवंत सिंह खेड़ा, वरिष्ठ सदस्य पन्नालाल सुराणा, संदीप पांडेय, श्याम गंभीर, रेणु गंभीर, चरण सिंह राजपूत और पार्टी के कोषाध्यक्ष और गुजरात से आए जयंतीभाई पांचाल ने शिरकत की। इसके साथ ही केरल इकाई के अध्यक्ष राजशेखरन नायर, बिहार इकाई के अध्यक्ष डॉ सुशील कुमार, पार्टी के संगठन मंत्री फैजल ख़ान, दिल्ली प्रदेश के कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष तहसीन अहमद, पंजाब इकाई के अध्यक्ष हरिन्द्र सिंह मनसहिया, मध्य प्रदेश इकाई के अध्यक्ष रामस्वरूप जी, वरिष्ठ समाजवादी रामबाबू अग्रवाल, समाजवादी जनता पार्टी की युवा इकाई के अध्यक्ष शादात अनवर और पार्टी की दूसरी राज्य इकाईयों के प्रतिनिधि मौजूद रहे। इन तमाम नेताओं ने जनसभा को संबोधित भी किया। 

जनसभा को 'सोशलिस्ट युवजन सभा' की महासचिव बंदना पांडेय और गौतम प्रीतम ने भी संबोधित किया। जनसभा में सोशलिस्ट पार्टी(इंडिया) के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष डॉ प्रेम सिंह ने कहा कि इस देश की सरकारें देशवासियों की संपत्ति की हिफाजत करने की बजाय उसे कॉर्पोरेट को सौंपने में जुटी है। डॉ प्रेम सिंह ने कहा कि अब हमारे सामने लोकतंत्र, समाजवाद और धर्मनिरपेक्ष मूल्यों को बचाने की चुनौती है। डॉ सिंह ने कहा कि अगर गांधी, लोहिया और जयप्रकाश के सपनों का भारत नहीं बन पाया तो इसमें समाजवादी झंडा थामकर चलनेवाले नेताओं का दोष भी बराबर है । डॉ सिंह ने कहा कि अगर समाजवाद का नाम लेनेवाली पार्टियों और नेताओं ने अपनी भूमिका ठीक से निभाई होती तो ना तो उदारीकरण के सामने इस देश की सियासत घुटने टेक पाती और ना ही बाबरी मस्जिद की शहादत होती। डॉ प्रेम सिंह ने कहा कि असली समाजवादी वही है जो निर्भीक हो और चुनौतियों से संघर्ष करने के

लिए हर पल तैयार रहता हो।

सोशलिस्ट युवजन सभा के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष नीरज ने जनसभा में धन्यवाद ज्ञापित किया।

तहसीन अहमद  

कार्यकारी अध्यक्ष 

मोबाइल : 96 54 07 95 28 

चीन के साथ सीमा-विवाद पर सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का नज़रिया

18 जुलाई 2017

प्रेस रिलीज़

चीन के साथ सीमा-विवाद पर सोशलिस्ट पार्टी का नज़रिया

      वर्तमान मोदी सरकार की आक्रामक कश्मीर नीति उसे चीन से टकराव तक ले गई है। चीन भारत की चारों ओर से घेराबंदी करता जा रहा है। चीन के मीडिया में उनके नीति विशेषज्ञ यह विचार व्यक्त कर रहे हैं कि जिस तरह भारत ने भूटान में घुसकर चीन का विरोध किया है, उसी तरह चीन की सेना आजाद कश्मीर में घुसकर भारत का विरोध कर सकती है। चीनी मीडिया 1962 के भारत-चीन युद्ध के दौरान लिखे गए लेख और फोटो संग्रहालय से निकल कर छाप रहा है। अगर कश्मीर की मुख्यमंत्री महबूबा मुफ्ती और पश्चिम बंगाल की मुख्यमंत्री ममता बनर्जी केन्द्रीय गृहमंत्री को बता रही हैं कि चीन कश्मीर और दार्जिलिंग पहाड़ियों में हस्तक्षेप कर रहा है तो इसे हल्के में नहीं लेना चाहिए।

      दुर्भाग्य से सरकार देश की सीमाओं की सुरक्षा जैसे गंभीर मुद्दे पर समुचित ध्यान देने के बजाय समाज और देश के भीतर नफरत फ़ैलाने में जुटी है। राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ के प्रचारक और उनसे प्रेरित मीडिया कश्मीर की अवाम के खिलाफ नफरत फैला रहे हैं गोयास वे भारत का अभिन्न हिस्सा न हों। चीनी सामानों के बहिष्कार अभियान भी कश्मीर से जोड़कर चलाया जाता है. यह बात काफी पहले से जाहिर है कि चीन पाकिस्तान की मदद करता है और मौलाना मसूद अजहर जैसे आतंकियो पर अंतरराष्ट्रीय पाबंदी लगाए जाने का संयुक्त राष्ट्र में विरोध करता है। लेकिन कश्मीर के मामले से चीन को जोड़कर प्रचार करने का अभियान देश के भीतर आरएसएस के प्रचारकों और मीडिया ने पहली बार शुरू किया है। उनकी नफ़रत का हाल यह है कि उन्हें वह दिखावटी सद्भाव भी सहनीय नहीं है जो महबूबा मुफ्ती और राजनाथ सिंह ने अमरनाथ यात्रा के बाद कश्मीर के अलगाववादी और मानवाधिकारवादी संगठनों की प्रतिक्रिया के बाद कश्मीरियत के हवाले से व्यक्त किया था! इस बीच भारत के सेनाध्यक्ष जनरल विपिन रावत ने अढ़ाई मोर्चे पर निपटने की तैयारी का बयान देकर यह जाहिर किया है कि वे कश्मीर को आधा मोर्चा मान कर चल रहे हैं। किसी भी देश के लिए इतने मोर्चे खोलना न तो सैद्धांतिक तौर पर सही है और न ही व्यावहारिक तौर पर।

      भारत के समाजवादियों चिंतकों और नेताओं का लंबे समय से चीन के बारे में यह नजरिया रहा है कि वह एक विस्तारवादी देश है और मौका मिलते ही भारत को घेरने और कमजोर करने की कोशिश करता है। इसीलिए डॉ. लोहिया ने हिमालय नीति बना कर नेपाल, भूटान, सिक्किम, कश्मीर समेत पूर्वोत्तर राज्यों की महत्वपूर्ण आबादी के साथ भाईचारा संबंध कायम करने और उनमें होने वाले लोकतांत्रिक आंदोलनों को मजबूत करने की बात की थी। उनका मानना था कि इससे भारत की सीमाएं सुरक्षित होंगी।

      लेकिन संकीर्ण सांप्रदायिक संगठन आरएसएस से निकली मोदी सरकार उन इलाकों में हिमालय नीति की बजाय 'हिंदू नीति' चलाने पर आमादा है। यही वजह है कि यूपीए सरकार के समय अपेक्षाकृत शांत कश्मीर एनडीए सरकार के समय भड़क उठा है; दार्जीलिंग में ममता सरकार के खिलाफ लगाई गई भाजपा की आग सिक्किम को भी झुलसा रही है; प्रधानमंत्री मोदी की पशुपतिनाथ यात्रा और भूकम्प के दौरान असाधारण राहत के बावजूद नेपाल चीन की ओर अतिरिक्त रूप से झुक गया है; अरुणाचल प्रदेश के स्थानों को चीन अपने नाम दे रहा है; और डोकलाम पर महीने भर से तनातनी के बावजूद भूटान उससे वार्ताएं कर रहा है। हालाँकि भूटान के चीन चीन से राजनयिक संबंध नहीं हैं।  

      लोहिया जी ने स्पष्ट तौर पर कहा था, ``तिब्बत के बारे में मुझे कोई लंबी ऐतिहासिक बहस नहीं करनी है। मैं समझता हूं कि तिब्बत आजाद होना चाहिए। वह आजाद रहा है। इतिहास में ऐसा भी समय रहा है जब तिब्बत ने चीन पर राज किया है।‘’ डॉ. लोहिया ने तो यह भी साबित करने की कोशिश की थी किसी जमाने में लद्दाख के राजा ने कैलाश मानसरोवर तिब्बत को उपहार में दिया था लेकिन वहां स्थित मनसर गांव अपने पास रख लिया था और उसकी मालगुजारी उन्हें मिलती थी। इसलिए आज 1890 की अंग्रेजों और चीन के बीच हुई उस संधि को ठुकराने की जरूरत है जिससे स्वयं पहले प्रधानमंत्री नेहरू भी सहमत नहीं थे। साथ ही कैलाश मानसरोवर जैसे स्थलों पर भारत के दावों को पुख्ता करने की ज़रुरत है।

      इसी के साथ भारत को 90,000 वर्ग किलोमीटर भूमि पर भी दावा करना चाहिए जिस पर चीन ने कब्जा किया हुआ है। इस बारे में संसद में एक बार फिर संकल्प प्रस्ताव पारित किया जाना चाहिए और विपक्षी दलों को विश्वास में लेकर यह दिखा देना चाहिए कि दोकलाम के मामले पर पूरा भारत एक है। भारत चीन से सीमा विवाद हल करने के लिए वार्ताएं करने को तैयार है, लेकिन अपनी संप्रभुता की कीमत पर उसके विस्तारवाद को स्वीकार करने को तैयार नहीं है।

      यह नहीं भूलाया जाना चाहिए कि भूटान और सिक्किम के सीमा त्रिकोण पर स्थित दोकलाम के पठार का विवाद 2014 के दौलत बेग ओल्डी और 2013 के चुमार विवाद से अलग है. तब चीन सैनिक स्तर पर वार्ता के लिए तैयार था और उसे जल्दी ही निपटा लिया गया था. लेकिन इस बार चीन ने शर्त रखी है कि वह वार्ता तभी करेगा जब भारतीय सेनाएं दोकलाम से पीछे हटेंगी। यहां भारत को राजनयिक समझौता किए बिना अपनी दृढ़ता दिखानी चाहिए, क्योंकि चीन भारत को नेपाल, श्रीलंका, पकिस्तान, भूटान, बांग्लादेश जैसे सभी देशों में घुस कर चारों तरफ से घेर रहा है और 'वन बेल्ट वन रोड' योजना को इस इलाके की तरक्की का मन्त्र बता रहा है.

      भारत को यह भी नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि यह चीन देंग श्याओपिंग का चीन नहीं है। यह माओ के चीन जैसा आक्रामक चीन है जो उस संकट से निकल चुका है जो सोवियत संघ जैसे कम्युनिस्ट देशों के विघटन और थ्येनआनमन चौक की विद्रोही घटना के बाद पैदा हुआ था। तब चीन के अस्तित्व का संकट था। अब चीन का शासक वर्ग व्यावहारिक विदेशनीति की बजाय भारत की तरह आक्रामक राष्ट्रवाद की नीति पर चल रहा है। लेकिन अंतर यह है कि चीन के राष्ट्रवाद में समाज और धर्म के आधार पर वैसा संकीर्ण विभाजन नहीं है, जैसा संघ परिवार के लोग भारत में पैदा कर रहे हैं। भारत चीन के सामने तभी डटकर खड़ा हो सकता है जब आरएसएस/भाजपा देश के भीतर संकीर्णता आधारित नफरत फैलाने का अभियान बंद करे।

      मामला सिर्फ चीनी सामानों के बायकाट करने का नहीं है। यह पाखंडपूर्ण आर्थिक हथकंडा किसी काम का नहीं है अगर आप सरदार पटेल की मूर्ति चीन से बनवा रहें हैं। अगर बायकाट करना है तो समस्त बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों के सामानों का बायकाट करना होगा। यह तभी होगा जब उदारीकरण और वैश्वीकरण की नीतियों का बहिष्कार किया जाये जिसके विरुद्ध हैम्बर्ग में भी जबरदस्त प्रदर्शन हुआ था। तभी इस देश के संसाधन बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों और कार्पोरेट घरानों की लूट से बच सकेंगे। तभी देश के मेहनतकश लोग देश की अखंडता के लिए किसी भी विदेशी ताकत के सामने डट कर खड़े हो सकेंगे।

डॉ. प्रेम सिंह

अध्यक्ष

मोबाइल : 8826275067