Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Unmasking the Moist movement in India

Mr Azad, spokesperson of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), recently defended Maoist movement in India in an exclusive interview in "The Hindu". For those who are not familiar with history of communism or some factual news on the Maoist movements in India, may very well be impressed by soft spoken Azad. But once we start peeling off his augments, we would figure out Maoists are indeed misleading a lot of progressive Indians who are otherwise fed up due to prostitution of politics and corruption in India.

His interview is full of contradictions and if somebody is not aware of communist history or Indian constitutions, one can easily be mesmerized by his sweet talk. But behind the sweet talk, he left a pack of lies and self contradictions which can not be denied.

Firstly, he is claiming Maoists are in favor of democratic movements and want to join hands with progressive democratic fronts. Those who are familiar with history of communism-can ask this question point blank. What is the history of the democratic force which joined hands with Lenin, Mao,Castro? Were not they all killed or admitted to change their political view under gun point?? How does a Leninist speak of democratic force when Lenin dismissed elected socialists from the Constituent Assembly after losing in November, 1917 election? Similarly history of the progressive force which joined Mao also suffered equal dark history of brutal state oppression during cultural revolution. He wanted to showcase democratic face of the Moists! How can he do that when their Godfathers left such a brutal legacy of killing democratic movements and betrayal with progressive democratic force which joined hands with them during revolution?

Second point is practical consideration for cease fire. He is stressing on following Indian constitution. If that be it, then first condition would be simple- they have to surrender arms-because their arms are illegal. Chidarmbaram didn't ask more than this. So pointing at him for violating constitution would be backfiring argument.

Thirdly, on his defense of killing CPM workers, he made baseless comments. Many of the CPM workers may be oppressors but not all of them. Many of them were killed just because they were CPM workers. It may be a tit-for-a-tat for a party like CPM, which also does not believe in Human Rights but an eye-for-an eye is no way civilized norm. May be communists have a different meaning for the word "Human Rights" not understood by the mortal people like us.

Fourthly he supports all the separatist movement of India as struggle against imperialism and at the same time, he calls for patriotic Indians to support them. This is height of contradiction. Also for more clarity, an organization like JKLF, whom he is supporting for their anti-imperialist struggle, is not at all progressive-they believe in Sharia and all kinds of outdated misogynist social orders mandated in Islamism. Even in other day, I saw Kishenji supported Osama for anti-imperialism! So supporting Islamic radicals as anti-imperialist progressive, pro-people force is more than a raving fanaticism!

Finally, his defense of human right violation and opposing development process stands no merit. No development is perfect. Even Stalin industrialized Soviet by putting 5 million Ukraninians to starvation. It happens only at small steps. If he can not appreciate that, he can very well form a party and ask others to vote for him! His opinion does not justify gunning down the development process in the tribal areas. Also he distorted facts. In Lalgarh uprising started as a popular tribal movement. But these days, where ever there is a popular uprising, Maoists under covered as progressive democrats infiltrate the movement. We have seen how they worked in Nandigram and Lalgargh. Indeed, they are the ones who are insinuating democratic movements into an armed resistance for no valid reason when we do have a functioning democracy.

One should not be fooled by Mr Azad's interview and his sweet talk on his love for democracy. One can not love democracy and communism at the same time. Communism is anti-thesis of democracy and in order for somebody to claim himself to be both democratic and communist -either ignorance or hypocrisy should prevail at its best.