SFI Pamphlet dated 5th October, '08

Poster of Public Meeting on Dravidian Movement

Release of the Hindu article on Kerala Model in Public Health

SFI Pamphlet dated 29th September, '08

SFI Pamphlet dated 3rd Jan, '08

SFI-AISF Pamphlet dated 25th Oct, '07

October 25, 2007

On the Struggle against Neoliberalism

Friends,

It is amply clear from the pamphlets issued by the AISA and the ABVP yesterday that they have nothing concrete and substantial to offer, as far as the debate during the JNUSU elections 2007 is concerned, except for a continuous diatribe against the Left. It is indeed strange that AISA and ABVP, supposedly belonging to opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, are speaking in one voice against the Left Front government in West Bengal. However, once one realizes that both the CPI (ML) Liberation and the RSS-BJP are fringe players in the political scene in Bengal and are nothing more than mere appendages to the arch reactionary mahajot against the Left, led by Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamul Congress, the political motivation behind their anti-Left sabre-rattling becomes clear. These cheerleaders of Mamata Banerjee have no other agenda but to malign and weaken the Left Front, which is currently engaged in a crucial battle with the UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal and neoliberal economic policies. SFI-AISF appeals to the student community to see through the dubious game of these politically bankrupt organizations who have no constructive agenda to present before the student community and who are hell bent upon converting the students’ union elections in a national university like JNU, into a municipality election in West Bengal.

The juvenile questions raised by the AISA in yesterday’s pamphlet reflect the complete degeneration that has set in the thinking of the ultra-Left in India. The sectarianism inherent within AISA-CPI (ML)’s brand of perpetually confused politics has led them to drag the names of esteemed Marxist intellectuals and pit them against the Chief Minister of West Bengal, in a cavalier and cheap manner. AISA would be foolish to think that the students of JNU, who have a high intellectual and academic level, can be hood winked by such attempts at distorting, trivializing and sensationalizing a serious debate. Following the footsteps of US backed media channels like CNN-IBN, who serves their daily doses of mirch-masaala stories regarding “differences” within the Left to the ultimate satisfaction of the urban elite, the AISA has reduced the level of their pamphleteering to yellow-journalism. They would do well to read the history of the Communist movement in India, which shows that ideological political debates on issues like economic development have been one of the most cherished traditions of the Left. It is precisely because of such a rich and democratic culture of debate and discussion that the Left in India did not meet the fate of the Communist parties in the USSR and Eastern Europe, which had stifled inner-Party democracy to their own detriment. Parties and individuals within the Left do have ideological political differences between them, but that does not deter a broader unity in order to advance the cause of the Left. Unfortunately, sectarian outfits like the CPI (ML) Liberation and AISA, who are neither serious about Left politics nor have any real stake in the Left movement, never realize the importance of either Left unity or intra-Left debate.

The substantive part of AISA’s criticism regarding the Left Front government in West Bengal, is a carbon copy of the bourgeois campaign, that the Left indulges in “doublespeak”, that they implement the same policies in Left ruled states like West Bengal and Kerala which they oppose at the Centre. In this neoliberal era, where the Central Government has withdrawn from the responsibility of undertaking Public Investments through Central Public Sector undertakings and the States have been pushed into a destructive competition of attracting private investments by giving more and more concessions, the Left ruled States are faced with a particularly difficult choice. Either to turn away from private investments altogether (which the ultra-Left wants the Left Front Government to do) or to seek private investment. In the first case, the natural outcome would be industrial stagnation and burgeoning unemployment leading to the unpopularity of the Left Front Governments eventually leading to their downfall. In the second case some degree of industrialization, employment generation and resource mobilization is possible which can provide relief to the people. It is the second path that the Left Front Governments, especially the West Bengal Government, have chosen keeping in mind the fact that the areas in which State Governments continue to have a say, like for instance agriculture or land reforms, alternative policies of the Left would continue to be pursued. It is no wonder therefore, that the most pro-people policies in the sphere of agriculture and land reforms are being implemented by the Left ruled States of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. Neither is it surprising that the Left ruled States continue to be the most advanced outposts of working class as well as peasant movements, as can be witnessed by the massive successes of the All India Strikes against neoliberal policies in these States more than anywhere else. Despite their resistance and the best of intentions, the Left ruled States are simply not in a position to change the overall neoliberal direction of economic policies in the country. That can only come about through the ascendancy of anti-neoliberal Governments in more States of the Indian Union and eventually at the Centre. The Left, democratic and progressive forces have to wage much bigger struggles and movements than what has been witnessed till date, in order to bring about such a change in the correlation of political forces in India. Such struggles are being waged under the leadership of the Left across the country and it has gained momentum since 2004, when the Left has been able to project its alternative at a national level in a more effective manner through its interventions at the Centre.

Why should the constraints imposed upon the Left ruled State Governments by the neoliberal regime, however, stop the Left from fighting neoliberal policies at the Centre or the other anti-people State Governments? That is the question we should like to ask all those who charge the Left of indulging in doublespeak, including the AISA. The Left Parties continue to be the only political formation with substantial mass base and Parliamentary strength that consistently opposes neoliberal policies. All the CPI (ML) factions put together do not even have a single representative in Parliament or any State legislature outside Bihar. That is the biggest proof of the fact that the people of India have refused to provide any space in India’s body polity to their petty bourgeois childishness masquerading as ultra-Left politics. AISA seems to have arrived at a conclusion that they only have the right to ask questions to others but not answer any question regarding their own politics and ideology. Never for once do they introspect why the CPI (ML), formed 40 years ago to overthrow the ‘semi-colonial’ Indian state through armed struggle, have ended in a total farce, with the ML itself splintering in innumerable factions engaged in killing each other. They have no answer as to why their ‘armed struggle’ has failed and factions like the ML-Liberation have abandoned that path and joined the parliamentary democratic process, which they once used to term ‘revisionist’. Neither do the AISA ever bother to explain why even after nearly two decades of their participation in the parliamentary democratic process, the CPI (ML) Liberation continues to remain an invisible political force in the country?

The Left Parties can indeed be criticized on many counts. But can anyone question the fact that had it not been for the principled support to a secular Government at the Centre by the Left Parties, the communal forces led by the BJP would have consolidated their rule at the Centre? Who is resisting the strategic alliance between the Indian government and the killer Bush administration, which is sought to be cemented through the nuclear deal? Who has been instrumental in pushing the UPA government to adopt progressive steps like the NREGA, the Tribal Rights Bill, OBC reservations or the Sachar Committee? Who has successfully resisted neoliberal measures like disinvestment, pension privatization, FDI in Retail or Foreign Education Providers Bill? It is because of the fact that the Left Parties have played such a crucial role in resisting anti-people measures and projecting pro-people alternatives at the national level over the past three years that there is such a vicious attack against the Left by the ruling classes and the mainstream media today. The AISA needs to answer what has been the CPI (ML) Liberation’s contribution in this fight against communalism, neoliberal economic policies and imperialism in India over the past few years? Is there any instance of a successful resistance or a progressive alternative to neoliberalism in India, which the AISA or CPI (ML) Liberation can claim as an achievement?

Sd/-Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Manish Shrivastav, Co-Convenors, CCC, SFI-AISF.

SFI pamphlet dated 30th Aug '07

30-08-07

INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL: COMPROMISING OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO SERVE US INTERESTS

Friends,

The National Common Minimum Programme sets out the basic tenet of the foreign policy of the UPA Government in the following terms: “The UPA government will pursue an independent foreign policy keeping in mind its past traditions. This policy will seek to promote multipolarity in world relations and oppose all attempts at unilateralism.” There is no mention of any strategic relations or partnership with the US. However, the UPA Government has tried, since its inception, to circumvent and breach this important provision of the NCMP and continue with the NDA Government’s policy of deepening India’s strategic ties with the US and become its subordinate ally. However, within a month all these formulations were forgotten and series of strategic tie up with the US was achieved:

INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL AND INDIA'S STRATEGIC TIES WITH THE US:

● On June 28, 2005, just prior to Bush-Manmohan Agreement of July 18, 2005, New Framework for India-US Defence Relationship was signed. In this Agreement, it is stated, U.S.-India defence relationship derives from a common belief in freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and seeks to advance shared security interests. Considering that the Iraq invasion was justified by the US as bringing democracy to West Asia, a reference to a shared belief in democracy and rule of law cannot be acceptable to the Indian people.

● The Bush-Manmohan agreement was followed immediately by India’s vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Senator Lugar in his opening remarks in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had noted, approvingly, “We have already seen strategic benefits from our improving relationship with India. India’s votes at the IAEA on the Iran issue last September and this past February demonstrate that New Delhi is able and willing to adjust its traditional foreign policies and play a constructive role on international issues.” Manmohan Singh’s oft-repeated claims that India’s foreign policy would not change due to this Deal, is not borne out by his Governments’ record, especially when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic value of India aligning with the US.

● Currently, the Manmohan Singh Government is negotiating a Logistics and Service Agreement. This would virtually reduce India to an American ally in Asia. It essentially allows refueling and complete access to Indian facilities for all US ships and aircraft. The US navy can bomb Iraq and Iran and then come to India’s ports for rest, recreation and refueling, before going back for another round of hostilities. Step by step, from a vote against Iran, we are now to become hosts to the US navy in its military misadventures in West Asia and elsewhere. More importantly, as far as the 123 agreement is concerned, the Hyde Act categorically demands India to fall in line with US as explained below:

HYDE ACT AND INDIA'S INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY:

The Hyde Act is an enabling legislation that allows the US Congress to consider an agreement for civilian nuclear co-operation under the section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. The Hyde Act said very clearly that India’s foreign policy needed to be congruent to the US; it had to work in tandem with the US on isolating Iran. It demanded that India join the illegal PSI regime. It also restricted India’s access to technology to fuel and import of reactors. It denied access to technology for the fuel cycle – enrichment or reprocessing – and also for heavy water. It also made clear that in the event the Deal was canceled, the fuel supplies from the US would not only stop but the US would work with other suppliers to stop their supplies to India too. This is a major issue as earlier also, the US had stopped supplies to Tarapur reactors. If we put in a substantial nuclear program using imported reactors, this would mean our power program could be held hostage to the US’s continued goodwill.

All these tie ups with the US and the Hyde Act provision of the 123 agreement, seriously compromises our sovereignty and independent foreign policy. Should we allow our sovereignty be compromised by acting as junior partners of the greatest war machine and imperialist power that the world has ever seen? It is in this context that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not a narrow issue of the Left. It is about struggling to ensure that the sovereignty of our country is protected.

Today, it is the Left forces, who are spearheading the struggle against US domination of our country and the tendency within ruling classes to act as junior partners of imperialism. It is shameful that when the Left is engaged in a heated struggle against US imperialism, the 'infantile' ultras of AISA in the most sectarian manner is attacking the Left, only strengthening the hands of the right wing slander. Their political bankruptcy gets reflected by the fact that instead of mobilizing opinion against the deal, they are more interested in parroting the slanders of the media against the Left. This is a manifestation of their frustration, since the CPI(M-L) is irrelevant as far as the future of this deal is concerned. With regard to their point about voting out this government, let us remind our friends in AISA that the RSS Chief KS Sudarsan has said the same thing in a latest editorial in Organizer. So it is quite obvious whose politics they are serving by taking this position. We appeal to the student community to stand united against the Indo-US nuclear deal and in defence of our sovereignty and rally behind the Left.

Sd/- Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Secretary, SFI-JNU; Sd/- Roshan, President, SFI-JNU

SFI Pamphlet on 6th Aug '07

Shame On AISA’S Continuing Defense Of Violence In The Campus!!

Date: 06/08/07

Friends,

Acting in the most shameless and politically bankrupt manner the AISA is continuing with its defense of the incident of 3rd August where Rajan Pandey, a Joint Secy of their JNU unit indulged in a serious act of violence against a YFE activist at the Ad Block. Devoid of any logical defense (which is not possible for such a condemnable act of violence) they have vented out their frustration by attacking the SFI in their yesterday’s pamphlet. The SFI’s description of the incident of that day is an eyewitness account of what happened there and we would appeal to the AISA to stop spreading their lies and doctored stories in trying to defend Rajan. Also it fails our understanding as to how the SFI is responsible for the different versions of that incident by different organizations. In a ridiculous manner the AISA has alleged that the SFI has hidden the fact that Sumit had been discharged from AIIMS day before yesterday. We would like to make it clear to the AISA that the SFI was not reporting the whereabouts of Sumit in its pamphlet. What needs to reckoned with is the fact that Rajan’s attack on Sumit caused him serious injuries and he had to be hospitalized. We strongly believe that such incidents of violence have no place in our campus and are an attack on the progressive democratic culture of this university which has been built after a long and arduous struggle by the students of this campus. We would still appeal to the AISA to show some political integrity and courage to honestly accept that Rajan’s act of violence that day is a condemnable thing and can not be justified on any grounds. We would like to question the AISA that if they are so confident about Rajan’s innocence then why has he disappeared from the campus instead of facing the student community?

Accusing the SFI of Mahajot with the YFE : yet another example of AISA’s political bankruptcy:

The AISA has accused the SFI of entering into a grand mahajot with the YFE and other right wing political organizations because it has taken a position against Rajan’s act of violence. Such an accusation only reflects the degeneration of AISA’s so called radical and alternative model of the student movement in JNU. We would like to make it clear to the AISA that taking a position on violence against an individual does not mean that one supports his/her politics. The SFI has no illusions about the castist and reactionary politics of the Youth for (In) equality in this campus. The progressive student movement of this campus has always shown these organizations their due place in the political spectrum of JNU. We would also like to remind the AISA that it was only because of SFI’s valiant struggle against the divisive and caste based politics of the YFE that the students of this campus decided to give the leadership of the JNUSU in terms of the President’s post to the SFI in last year’s JNUSU elections. But we have always held that the only way to defeat and isolate these forces is waging a political struggle against them and mobilizing students against them on a political and ideological basis. The SFI has always fought tooth and nail against any oppression or act of violence by the right wing lumpens in this campus. We would like to remind the AISA that it was only because of the spirited struggle by the SFI and its JNUSU representatives that punishment was given to the JPF lumpens in the incident of caste abuse and violence against a dalit student in Lohit and Chandrabagha hostels last year. The SFI does not believe that going around and indulging in violence against right wing political activists would strengthen the Left movement in this campus. We would also like to warn the AISA against making such accusations and taking the consciousness of student community for granted in this manner. If lumpenism and violence have become the weapons for fighting organizations like the YFE for AISA’s brand of left politics in this campus, then the progressive student community would give a fitting rebuff to such political ideological bankruptcy.

Who has been acting as an agent of the administration!:

Continuing with their doublespeak and shameless behaviour the AISA has accused the SFI of taking a pro administration stand. We would only like to remind them about the recent agitation where the students have clearly seen the commitment and hard work of SFI AISF activists against the unjust punishments given to 11 students in the 19th February case. In fact we would like to question the AISA about why they have not been able to answer any of the questions raised by us on the submission of appeal by the General Secretary of the JNUSU, who is from their organization. His meek surrender before the administration which has still not revoked the rustications and fines on the students even after more than 3 weeks of a written agreement is nothing else but a complete betrayal of the student movement. We would advise the AISA to indulge in some self introspection before parroting their ultra revolutionary zeal in front of the student community of JNU.

The SFI appeals to the student community to isolate this kind of degenerate and unprincipled politics which would only weaken the left democratic student movement of our campus. We also appeal to the supporters of AISA to think about the kind of activities, which their organizational leadership is doing and justifying in the name of left politics in this campus.

Sd/- Roshan Kishore, President, SFI-JNU.

Sd/- Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Secretary, SFI-JNU.