• Uttarakhand:
  Problems and possibilities

• What kind of Communist Party A Party that empowers the working class requires the basic organization at its foundation

• Millennium Assembly of the UN adopts agenda for the new century :
  Pious objectives but no measures to bring them into effect

• News Analysis:
  Second US-India summit reaffirms new arrangements

• Struggle of the toilers will continue in Chattisgarh

• People’s struggle in Sanjay Colony, Delhi
  Water and electricity are basic rights

Uttarakhand:

Problems and possibilities

After years of struggle, the demand of the people of Uttarakhand for a separate state of their own has been fulfilled. The people of Uttarakhand now have entered a new phase of the struggle. They have to ensure that the aspirations which inspired them to take up the struggle for a separate state are actually realised. This is a many times more difficult struggle.

Enormous problems confront the hill peoples. In a land that has abundance of water resources and supplies electric power to vast regions of India, the majority of people living in the villages have to trudge for miles through difficult terrain for a pot of drinking water. Most of the villages lack electricity. Most villages lack proper roads or communication with the towns and people, including children, the infirm and the old, have to walk for hours and even days to reach the nearest hospital. The rich forests have been plundered by the timber mafia and in most parts of the state there is no source of livelihood. Therefore, entire villages are devoid of young men, as they seek livelihood in the armed forces or in the hotel industry in Delhi and other parts of India. Uttarakhand has been ruined by capitalist development, its water and rich natural resources plundered and pillaged, selected areas converted into pleasure and pilgrimage spots for tourists, with vast areas neglected and deprived.

It is clear that to address these enormous problems, people need political power in their hands. Will the creation of an Uttarakhand Assembly ensure power in the hands of the people? Obviously not. In fact the very forces who for decades were responsible for the neglect of Uttarakhand are going to constitute the Uttarakhand Assembly and decide on the future of Uttarakhand. This means the people of Uttarakhand have to be prepared to face numerous attacks and diversions from these forces.

Already, the issue of which place should be the capital of the new state is being used to divide the people of Garhwal and Kumaon regions and set them at logger heads with each other. All kinds of considerations are being put forward to decide this question, without addressing the fundamental question of how the new government of the new state proposes to address the burning problems of the people. This issue is being used by the bourgeois politicians for creating vote banks. Far from presenting a lofty and farsighted vision for the democratic renewal of Uttarakhand within the framework of the democratic renewal of India, what the people of Uttarakhand are witnessing is the sordid spectacle of the chieftains of the Congress and BJP fighting for loaves of office and spreading narrow parochial views to divide and paralyse the people.

What is happening to the people of Uttarakhand today is a replay of what happened with the people of India 53 years ago at the time of formal independence from colonial rule. The peoples shed their blood. However, they were not allowed to enjoy the fruits of victory, they were not allowed to create the new political power that would vest sovereignty with the people of India. Instead, the old forces, the very forces that had compromised with the colonialists and were sharing power with them in the earlier period, came to power. The India they fashioned after 1947 was not the India the fighters for freedom envisaged. The problems that colonialism had created remained unaddressed. Capitalism and the colonial legacy have continued to flourish, devastating the Indian people.

A similar thing is taking place with the people of Uttarakhand. They have won a victory in the creation of Uttarakhand, a victory that is formal. To give it the content they have all along desired, they must continue to wage the struggle with clear aims.

The Indian working class is fighting for an immediate program of thoroughgoing democratic renewal of India. The aim of democratic renewal is ensuring that the economy does provide for all the people. For this aim to be realised, political power must necessarily vest with the vast masses of workers, peasants, women and youth of all nations, nationalities and tribal peoples, who have hitherto been deprived of power. The program of democratic renewal will ensure that the Indian Union is reorganised as a voluntary union of consenting peoples. Such a new union will be for mutual benefit as well as act as a powerful block against any imperialist marauders. A clean break with capitalism and the colonial legacy is the condition for the forward march of the working class and people of India.

As a start, the working masses of Uttarakhand must ensure today that the agenda is set by them, not by the ruling classes. They must organise themselves into non-partisan committees in the villages, schools and other economic institutions and put forth proposals for solutions to all economic and political problems, including the problem of guaranteed livelihood, food security, health care, water, electricity and so on. They must select and put forth from amongst their peers, those candidates who would be sincere fighters for the interests of the people and fight for the victory of only such candidates to the next assembly—and not the candidates selected by bourgeois political parties like the Congress and the BJP.

The people of Uttarakhand have a wealth of positive experience in unitedly fighting for their goals. In the course of this protracted struggle, they know who are the true fighters and who are the chameleons and toadies. They have also a wealth of negative experience of the disruptive role of the reactionary politicians of the BJP and the Congress, as well as others. They must deploy all their experience gained through the struggle in the bigger battles that lie ahead.

Back to Table of Contents

What kind of Communist Party
A Party that empowers the working class requires the basic organization at its foundation

The modern Communist Party is not an electoral machine. It is an instrument for the empowerment of the working class and all the oppressed. The Communist Party must work to ensure that the working class leads all of society out of its current crisis. It must act as the harbinger of the new society, as the force that leads the movement of the workers, peasants, women and youth to become the masters of society. It must organize the working class to lead the transition from capitalism to socialism, which is the first stage of communism. It must fight for a new kind of political power in which the people are sovereign. Working with the aim of creating a new kind of political power, it must necessarily be a new kind of political party, distinct from the parliamentary parties of the bourgeoisie. The distinction is seen most clearly in who sets the agenda and where decision-making power lies in the party.

A bourgeois parliamentary party is organized only for one purpose—to elect its members and form a government. This is why such a party is referred to as an electoral machine. In such parties, the supreme decision-making authority lies in the hands of a small coterie that is often referred to as the "high command". The high command sets the agenda and makes the decisions while the role of the so-called rank and file is to follow those decisions and work for the victory of the party candidates at every election.

In the Communist Party, the supreme decision making authority lies with the Congress of the Party. The Congress is an assembly of delegates from all organizations of the party. The Congress elects the Central Committee, which has the duty to work relentlessly to ensure that the line set by the Congress is defended at all times and the decisions of the Congress are implemented by the entire party. The Central Committee exercises the overall decision-making authority in the party in between two congresses. However, the Central Committee does not have the authority to overturn the decisions of the Congress, which elected it in the first place. It is duty bound to convene another Congress if any of the decisions of the previous Congress are to be changed.

Basic organizations of class struggle are a unique feature of the Communist Party. At the base or foundation of the Communist Party are the basic organizations, which are organs of class struggle in the midst of the workers, peasants, women, youth and progressive intelligentsia. The basic organizations are the link between the party and the broad masses of workers and other oppressed. Far from coming into action only when an election is called, the basic organization of class struggle is intimately involved in the work to empower the working class and people at all times and under all circumstances. It is the place where the fighter for communism is recruited and where he or she is molded as a communist. The basic organizations are the schools of communism.

Lenin deliberated on the concept of the cell or the basic organization many times. He wrote, "In all organizations, unions and associations without exception, and first and foremost in proletarian organizations, but also in those of the non-proletarian toiling and exploited masses (political, trade union, military, co-operative, education, sports, etc.,etc.), groups or cells of Communists should be formed - preferably open groups, but underground groups as well, the latter being essential whenever there is reason to expect their suppression, or the arrest or banishment of their members on the part of the bourgeoisie; these cells, which are to be in close touch with one another and with the Party centre, should, by pooling their experience, carrying on work of agitation, propaganda and organization, adapting themselves to absolutely every sphere of public life and to every variety and category of the toiling masses, systematically educate themselves, the Party, the class, and the masses by means of such diversified work" (Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International, published in July 1920).

In other words, the basic organizations are established wherever the masses of people are to be found, right in their midst. They establish the unbreakable unity between the vanguard of the working class and the mass of workers and broad masses of the people. With such a mandate it is no wonder that the basic organization has become known as the greatest political invention of the 20th century.

Membership in a bourgeois party is like buying something in the market – you purchase a membership. But in the Communist Party people can only join through working in a basic organization as candidate members. A communist, by definition, has to be working as a member of one of the party organizations, under the discipline of a collective of the party.

The Communist Party is an organization of collectives, where each collective exercises the power to make decisions in its own sphere of operation, and is duty bound to implement the decisions it makes. The basic organizations make decisions and plans of action consistent with the line of the Party and fight for the implementation and realization of these decisions and plans. This integration of legislative and executive power, right from the foundation and at all levels of the Communist Party is what makes it an instrument for the empowerment of the working class and people.

According to the doctrine of representative democracy, which appears in various forms and in which parliamentary parties form and run governments, political power must be split into three elements: an executive, a legislature and a judiciary. This split is necessary, the theorists of representative democracy argue, in order to prevent the concentration of power in one place, allegedly to prevent ‘dictatorship’. However, the system that this doctrine justifies is one in which it is the executive—the ruling Cabinet with the bureaucracy and army at its command—that exercises supreme power, subordinating the legislature and judiciary to it. It is a doctrine that justifies the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Representative democracy has its origin in the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the absolutism of the monarch in European society. It is this struggle led by propertied classes that eventually gave rise to parliamentary multi-party democracy—an arrangement that enables different sections of the propertied minority to compete for power while the propertyless majority is kept out of power.

Communism and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat posit that the legislative and executive powers must be fused into one—those who make decisions must also have the duty to ensure their implementation. The bourgeoisie attacks this proposition by branding it as a ‘dictatorship’, promoting the notion that the guarantee of democracy is to have the three powers separated. In the twentieth century, the doctrine of representative democracy has become a weapon against the doctrine of communism.

In the Communist Party, decision-making power is democratically centralized on the basis of recognizing and upholding the rights of each individual and collective in the party. The integration of legislative and executive powers ensures that every individual is accountable to the collective and every collective is accountable for its deeds. In short, it ensures that there is no arbitrariness. Those who make the decisions are also responsible for their implementation.

The Communist Party organizes all its work on the basis of the principle of collective decisions and individual responsibility. Every collective in the party is responsible for checking up if agreed upon decisions are carried out. Criticism and self-criticism takes place in every basic organization where judgements are made and disciplinary actions are proposed.

For the basic organization to be able to perform its tasks, it is essential that within it there should be lively, active participation of all comrades without exception, in discussing all questions related to the work of advancing the class struggle. It is the duty of the party members to express their opinion and participate in setting the agenda for the work and in finding the path forward for the working class movement.

When the party member notices that the decisions of the Party are not being carried out, or that the line of the Party is not being upheld, or notices disorganization and delay in work, he or she should raise the issue in the basic organization of which he or she is a member. A party member is by no means permitted to remain aloof or passively indifferent when it is a question of the integrity of the line or the decisions of the Party. This is what the Communist Party demands of all its members. The right to participate in discussions and decisions and in fighting for their implementation is an inalienable right of every member of the party. The right to make constructive, sound criticism and self-criticism, which is intended to improve the work, is a party member’s right as well as duty.

Without the basic organizations, there cannot be the party of the new type, the type that will clearly serve the class aims of the working class. The basic organization is crucial, because it is that which empowers the working class and brings it into the political leadership of society. It is the basic building block of the unity of the communists and the unity of the people. Without the basic organizations, the working class cannot prepare itself to become the ruling class.

Those communist parties that do not pay first rate attention to the building and strengthening of basic organizations in the class will necessarily succumb, sooner or later, to the bourgeois ideological pressure and ultimately lose their class character. If democratic centralism is not defended and upheld as the principle of all organizing work, then bureaucracy and liberalism will take over. The Central Committee or the Polit Bureau then becomes the "high command" in the style of the bourgeois parties, and those who disagree with this arbitrary power develop into factions within the party. This is one clear lesson from the experience of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the CPSU(B), and from the experience of many other communist parties that embraced the parliamentary road and became champions of representative democracy.

While Lenin invented the basic organization, it is now the task of the communists of today to defend and further develop this invention, and to perfect its functioning, both in relation with the masses and in relation with the other organizations and collectives making up the modern Communist Party. The work to define and build the modern basic organization is among the most critical work that communists have to undertake at this time.

Once again, we invite all our readers and all our basic organizations to participate in this important and timely discussion.

Back to Table of Contents

Millennium Assembly of the UN adopts agenda for the new century :

Pious objectives but no measures to bring them into effect

Speaking immediately after the conclusion of the Millennium Summit, the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan noted that if measures "are really taken, we all know that targets can be achieved."

With these words, the Secretary General in effect revealed the shortcoming that the Millennium Summit failed to overcome, the shortcoming that has plagued the UN in the last decade, if not for most of the time it has been in existence. The main shortcoming has been that the General Assembly has remained powerless to implement its decisions and that the big powers have hijacked the Security Council which acts as the executive power of the UN and on that basis imposed their dictate on the rest of the world. The UN suffers from a crisis of legitimacy because not all countries have equal say and the UN has become an instrument of perpetuation of the inequality, domination and interference - the opposite of what its Charter set out to establish in the world order.

The 3,200 word Millennium Declaration, organised in eight sections with thirty two clauses and many sub-clauses, spells out many noble ideals already espoused in the UN Charter and Conventions such as "To fully respect and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or "to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the objectives and principles of the Charter". It reiterates a number of principles that have been the target of attack in the post Cold War world by rededicating the UN to "support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States; respect for their territorial integrity and political independence; resolution of disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law; the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation; non-interference in the internal affairs of States; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; respect for the equal rights of all without distinction to race, sex, language or religion; and international cooperation in solving international problems of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character."

It defines the key objectives to which the UN assigns special significance as (I) Peace, Security and Disarmament, (ii) Development and Poverty Eradication, (iii) Protecting our Common Environment, (iv) Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance, (v) Protecting the Vulnerable, (vi) Meeting the Special Needs of Africa and (vii) Strengthening the United Nations. It reiterates the UN as " the indispensable common house of the entire human family" and concludes by pledging "unstinting support for these common objectives, and determination to achieve them" by the leaders of all the member countries.

The Declaration, among other things, addresses itself to the problems of globalization and identifies poverty and war as two main obstacles to human development. It sets out the year 2015 as the target date to halve the number of people in extreme poverty, ensure universal primary education for boys and girls, reduce maternal mortality by three quarters, child mortality (under 5 year age group) by half, halt the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria and improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers before 2020. It identifies "freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility" as the six core values "essential" to international relations in future. In addition, the Declaration calls for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and an end to the illicit traffic in small arms. It calls for providing the UN with the necessary resources for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and related tasks.

The three day summit, preceding the adoption of the Declaration, heard views of the leaders of all the countries of the world, and 147 Heads of States or Governments gave those views on the goals set out in the draft declaration in person. What was new in 2000 compared to 1995 when the last large gathering of the heads of states and governments at the UN took place to mark the 50th anniversary of the UN was that the same powers that are responsible for the poverty and war in the world took up the mantle of being most interested in resolving them while most of the victims of the imperialist and neocolonial ills stopped short of highlighting why they suffer from the ills of imperialism. Just five years ago, the situation was the opposite. This time, except for few statesmen and world leaders led by Mr. Fidel Castro of Cuba, most others, including India’s Mr. Vajapayee, sang hossanna to the lofty aims, as if the problems of the world have no causes and the solutions do not require any struggle. It was presented as if it was a matter of will and there was no clash of interests that stood on the way to implement the goals set out ion the declaration. At the same time, they all pushed their own specific demands to advance their self interests within the current world development - India for permanent membership in the security council, China for multi-polar world, Russia against the missile defense treaty, Canada for "human security" agenda, Germany for permanent membership in the Security Council and so on. Countries like Lybia, Iraq and others that have been victims of blockades and attacks spoke against the imperialist intervention. All in all, the credibility crisis of the UN was deepened further because of the demagogy by so many heads of states and governments.

So, while the Millennium Summit succeeded to reaffirm the UN Charter in spite of stiff pressure from the big powers who want to legitimize their policy of "humanitarian intervention", "peace making" and commodification of the land and labor of the people of the entire world to be handed over to the private sector, this Summit failed to take measures that would remove the obstacles facing the UN to play its role for peace and development in the world. Even though it pledged to "combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women" and this was one of the 25 core international legal instruments which dozens of heads of State and Government signed or ratified during the summit, it did not convince many that a break with the past was being made. In fact, the Security Council release its own declaration that, among other things, pledged to make the United Nations more effective "in addressing conflict at all stages", euphemism for justifying intervention in other countries under more pretexts than that are used at this time.

The Declaration adopted provisions to ensure "that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people" on the one hand and added to it the demand of the forces of globalization that it will strive "to give greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general, to contribute to the realization of the Organization’s goals and programmes" on the other, the very same things that are being fought against by the world peoples for being the source of their misery and conflicts. In the end, the task of achieving the democratization of the UN and democratization of the international relations by smashing the big power dictate in this world falls on the shoulders of the people who have to take this up as an integral part of renewing their own societies.

Back to Table of Contents

News Analysis:

Second US-India summit reaffirms new arrangements

According to Mr. Vajpayee, the second Summit was "a continuing dialogue between the world’s two largest democracies". Mr. Clinton described the Summit in these words: "It is inconceivable to me that we can build the kind of world we want over the next 10 or 20 years unless there is a very strong partnership between the US and India." The "partnership" that Mr. Clinton referred to is the definition given to the present phase of post Cold-War Indo-US relationship, contained in the Vision Statement signed by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Vajapayee last March in Delhi. Among other things, the "partnership" is elaborated in the Vision Statement as follows:

The offer of "partnership" by India was less than what the US was seeking before the First Summit. The US had created momentum towards imposing its dictate on India during Mr. Clinton’s visit in March 2000, both on the Kashmir dispute and also on the non-proliferation issue. Prior to the March Summit, Mr. Clinton had characterized the Indo-Pak Line of Control(LoC) in Kashmir as the "most dangerous place on earth" and had offered himself to broker peace negotiations between India and Pakistan if both parties so desired. However, he had to settle for "common interest in and complementary responsibility for" regional security and accept that only the nations of South Asia can resolve the tensions in South Asia. On the non-proliferation issue, India did not accept the US demand to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT) or stop its missile development program but only reiterated its decision to conduct "no new nuclear tests" and not to hinder the CTBT "to come into force" once the US Senate ratifies it. This was significant because the US Senate had just then refused to ratify the CTBT, and was not going to consider a new ratification vote for years to come. On India’s part, since there is no law in India for any international treaty to be subjected to Parliamentary approval, a Cabinet decision can be taken at any time depending on the exigencies and thus India was keeping its options open on signing the CTBT whenever it wished to do so. On issues such as joint efforts in counter-terrorism, UN peace-keeping and so on, the partnership agreement reaffirmed the prior positions worked out in countless bilateral talks between India’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Yashwant Singh and the US under secretary Mr. Talbott.

The significant measures announced in the March summit were the institutionalization of State-to-State contacts between the US and India through regular Summits, Ministerial level talks, Joint Commissions and Joint Working Groups with defined mandates. The Second Summit was a byproduct of the partnership agreement besides being timed to materialize before Mr. Clinton steps down as President. The continuing meeting of the Joint Working Group on counter-terrorism, the Ministerial meetings involving the US Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State with Indian Foreign Minister etc. are also products of the partnership agreement. The joint statement issued by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Vajpayee on September 15, 2000 highlight that progress is being made to institutionalize the agreements contained in the Vision Statement. The latest joint statement says:

With the two joint statements, India and the US have broadly accepted the pursuit of India that it be recognized as a super power in Asia, and in particular in South Asia. The US, which had insisted on solution of the Kashmir issue on the basis of the UN resolution for the last five decades, changed its position this year to uphold the sanctity of the LoC as India has been insisting since the Simla Agreement. Mr. Vajpayee, in his address to the joint session of the US Congress said "Our cooperation for peace and stability requires us to define the principles of our own engagement. We must be prepared to accommodate our respective concerns. We must have the mutual confidence to acknowledge our respective roles and complementary responsibilities in areas of vital importance to each of us. Security issues have cast a shadow on our relationship. I believe this is unnecessary. We have much in common and no clash of interests." The US Congress, through its power to appropriate funds, has invested heavily in the last five decades in Pakistan, and in the post Cold War era is pondering over policy shifts for the US to dominate Asia. Mr. Vajpayee tacitly assured the US Congress that the Indian government would not only not stand in the way of the US aggressive pursuit of its own "interests" around the world under its new doctrine of "humanitarian intervention", but would encourage such adventurism, especially with respect to India’s neighbors. By adopting the US doctrine of "fighting terrorism", Mr. Vajpayee assured the US Congress that India has corrected the "imbalance" in its Cold War policy when it had sided with "communist" block against the "democracy" block and has now sided with "democracy" against "terrorism".

On the economic and technical-scientific front, the Summit declaration reiterated all the prior agreements and arrangements. The joint statement of September 15, 2000 said:

In addition, the joint statement sought to project that the people of Indian origin resident in the US, some 14 lakhs in number, were behind the "partnership". Mr. Clinton demonstratively invited a large number of the rich Indo-Americans (who pump large sums of money to the Democratic Party coffers) to the largest State dinner he has hosted during his Presidency.

In the course of Mr. Vajpayee’s visit to Washington, Mr. Clinton brazenly spelt out that the US views the partnership with India as one intended to "build the kind of world we (the US and India) want over the next 10 or 20 years". He said, "we’re all in the same boat together, we must find a way to steer together….We have built the strongest, most mature partnership that India and America have ever known. Its success will be our success together. India and America can change the world.’’ Mr. Vajpayee responded: "The manner in which we approach each other is being fundamentally transformed …We have, I believe, created a framework of dialogue and engagement that will stand the test of time." Judged against the background that the US has no other aim but to dominate the world and plunder the wealth of the nations and peoples, the US invitation to India to be its partner in this aim and India’s acceptance of this role are matters for grave concern for the danger it poses in Asia.

One of the other aims in holding the Summit was to convince the people in the US and India that the two powers stand for "shaping a future of peace, prosperity, democracy, pluralism and freedom for this world". They want the people to go to sleep and not address themselves to the problems of democratizing the international relations or renewing their societies to avert the cataclysmic war that will precede any re-division of the world if the US has its way. The official circles in the US and India are spinning the "achievements" of the Summit in superlative terms to befuddle the minds of the people, even though the US was not able to budge India from its diplomatic positions and India was not able to get the US to lift sanctions against it, accept India as the pre-eminent power of Asia or agree to isolate Pakistan beyond what it has already set in motion. Even on counter-terrorism, India’s draft Comprehensive International Convention at the UN was shunned by the US in favor of the bilateral Joint Working Group.

The US is a super power and India is aspiring to be a super power. The relationship they are forging to "build the kind of world we (the US and India) want over the next 10 or 20 years" is clearly not for a world that the people of the world are aspiring to build. The "partnership" defines the arena for their collusion and contention. The times require utmost vigilance.

Back to Table of Contents

Struggle of the toilers will continue in Chattisgarh

The workers and peasants of Chattisgarh are organising a massive rally on September 28, ’00 in Raipur, in honour of the martyred leader of Raipur, Shankar Guha Niyogi, and to pledge to carry forward their struggle for emancipation.

Shankar Guha Niyogi was a fighter for the rights of the toilers of Chattisgarh, who was martyred by the bullets of the capitalists. The people of Chattisgarh have been fighting for many years against barbaric exploitation and oppression, and against the grueling poverty and backwardness that their region is afflicted with.

The rally planned for September 28 this year has a special significance because Chattisgarh is to become a separate state from 1st November, ’00. The capitalists, who have been exploiting Chattisgarh all these years, bourgeois political leaders and their agents have been making a lot of false promises to the people on this occasion. These characters are attempting to usurp the fruits of the long and arduous struggle of the twenty million people of Chattisgarh, the struggle against their exploitation, poverty and unemployment, the struggle against the looting of the rich natural resources of the region, the struggle which has resulted in the Central government now having to concede their right to have a separate state. They are attempting to cover up the real issues and limit the agenda of the people only to the creation of a new state, while they are also busy fighting amongst themselves for the spoils of office, for the posts of chief minister and other plum positions.

However, the Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, while leading the struggle of the people has clearly declared that the mere creation of a separate state is not going to end the exploitation and oppression of the land and labour of the people of Chattisgarh as long as the same forces which are responsible for the exploitation and oppression of the people all these years control political power. It has stated that the need of today is for qualitative change, so that the oppressed people of Chattisgarh will be able to control the resources of the region, and become the masters of their own destinies.

Back to Table of Contents

People’s struggle in Sanjay Colony, Delhi

Water and electricity are basic rights

Residents of Sanjay Colony,

We are all aware of the great difficulties we all undergo on account of not getting basic facilities, such as water, electricity rations, and many others. Amongst all of these, the issues of water and electricity, without which it is difficult for us to survive, loom at us.

Sanjay Colony has been in existence for over 25 years now, and the youth of this colony have grown up encountering all the difficulties. The facilities which successive governments have promised us on numerous occasion in all these years have not yet seen the light of day. The ruling class thinks of the common people only as a defenseless voting machine, not as human beings.

Our mothers, sisters and brothers have to fight over water with each other, or trudge several kilometres to fetch water. The residents of this place are forced to waste half their lives attempting to obtain rations, water, electricity, etc.

Sanjay Colony gets electric power for hardly three or four hours each day. As a result, those who return after a hard day’s labour are unable even to get proper rest. The students living here are unable to study since there is no light, and their performance at examinations suffers as a result. Due to the lack of electric supply even in peak summer, we are put to extreme hardships and lead a most unenviable existence.

However, the youth and other residents of the colony have made up their minds to overcome these problems. Youth have come forward so that they can fight to resolve the issues. No messiah is going to deliver salvation to us; we will have to fight for our basic rights ourselves, we have only our own strength to rely upon.

Hence we appeal to all of you, brothers, sisters, mothers and elders, to attend the rally we are organising, so that you may inspire and guide the youth who wish to fight for a better life for all of us.

Your youthful comrades,

Lok Raj Sangathan

Naujawan Bharat Sabha

Back to Table of Contents