• Condemn the brutal massacre of innocent pilgrims in Katra!

• Further revelations in the Best Bakery Case
  How to punish those guilty of genocide?

• Increasing isolation and travails of the Anglo American imperialists

• Renewed arm twisting by the US to get immunity for war crimes

• Prospects for peace in South Asia

• Vigilance is needed

• The struggle to end communalism and communal violence

• Supreme Court decision tramples on the right of workers to strike

• A warning signal for working Indian class

Condemn the brutal massacre of innocent pilgrims in Katra!

With deep anger, People’s Voice condemns the brutal killings of pilgrims on their way to the Vaishno Devi temple in Jammu. According to press reports, grenades were lobbed amongst unsuspecting pilgrims as they were taking their meals at night in a langar. Several people are reported to have been killed, and dozens grievously injured in the attack.

That the brutal massacre in Katra took place on the eve of the opening session of parliament is not coincidental.

These are times when with the exchange of parliamentary delegations between India and Pakistan, as well as the strengthening of people to people ties, an atmosphere is being created wherein forces in South Asia, in particular in India and Pakistan, who want peace in South Asia, are striving for a principled peace in the region. These peace-loving forces are increasingly recognising the grave danger to peace and security, to freedom and sovereignty, from the unrestrained drive of US imperialism for the conquest of Asia.

The Katra massacre reveals that the reactionary forces who are against peace and friendship amongst the peoples of the region will stop at nothing to perpetuate the climate of hostility. US imperialism is extremely concerned that the peoples of India and Pakistan do not resolve their outstanding problems and become a block to its drive to conquer the region. There are entrenched forces in the ruling circles of India and Pakistan also who have always benefited from whipping up a climate of terror and chauvinist hysteria. Such forces are openly playing the game of the enemies of the people of South Asia, namely the US imperialists, and they must be exposed and isolated.

The Katra killings clearly reveal that the peoples of India and Pakistan who desire peace and friendship in the region have a hard road ahead to achieve this goal. However, they also reveal the desperation of the enemies of the people. The times demand that the peoples of India and Pakistan turn their grief at the continuing state terrorism and communal massacres into strength and fight unflinchingly for lasting peace in the region on the basis of firm opposition to US imperialism and to the reactionary forces in the two countries.

Back to Table of Contents

Further revelations in the Best Bakery Case

How to punish those guilty of genocide?

This judgement was so blatantly in the service of the guilty that it has deepened the legitimacy crisis of the Indian State and its ‘rule of law’. Human rights organisations and other political and social organisations all over the country have roundly condemned this judgement of the ’fast-track’ court as a travesty of justice.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sent a team to visit Vadodara from July 3-8, to gather information about the actual events there. The NHRC has urged the Gujarat government to reopen the case and to appeal to the High Court against the judgement of the ‘fast-track’ court within 90 days.

Meanwhile, several facts have been reported in the press, which point to the criminal involvement of both Congress and BJP politicians in silencing the victims and witnesses of the Best Bakery case. For instance, Rashtriya Sahara reported that prominent BJP politicians in Vadodara struck a deal with a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) councillor, charged for murder during the communal violence last year. This NCP councillor is reported to have been instrumental in threatening the witnesses of the Best Bakery case to retract their statements, in return for which the charges against him were withdrawn and he was acquitted.

It has also been reported in the newspapers that out of the nine judges that the Gujarat government has appointed for trying the cases related to the state-organised communal violence last year, seven are known to be members of political parties and organisations that actively participated in organising and carrying out the communal massacres of hundreds of people.

The BJP MLA who was reported to have escorted the witnesses into and out of the court, as well as some other local Congress Party councillors and politicians and their hired henchmen, are reported to have played a major role in silencing the witnesses. They are said to have threatened to kill the key witness Zahira Shaikh and her surviving family members, if they did not change their statements in court.

Following the sessions court judgement, Zahira Shaikh came to New Delhi to seek the intervention of the NHRC for reopening the case. She stated before the NHRC chairperson and other members that she had withdrawn her earlier statement in the trial court "under threat to her life and the lives of the remaining members of her family". Even as all these sordid facts were being revealed, Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley has gone on record saying that a law is needed to "punish" those who retract their statements in court!

What Mr. Jaitley does not speak about is the absence of a suitable law and enabling mechanisms to punish the guilty in the case of state-organised communal violence. Neither does he address the fact that the guilty remain unpunished for the communal slaughters in Delhi, Kanpur and other towns in 1984, in Mumbai, Surat and elsewhere in 1993, and in Gujarat in 2002.

Under the existing judicial system, charges can be laid and cases can be filed only against individuals but not against political parties in power. It is taken for granted that the State is above the law, including its executive, legislative and judicial arms. What this means in practice is that there is one ‘rule of law’ for the ruling class and another for the rest of society.

One of the serious flaws in the Indian Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, is that there is no law against genocide organised by those in power. This is one of the reasons why state-organised communal massacres can repeatedly take place, each time with increasing ferocity, but those guilty of organising and executing these massacres are never convicted or punished.

The present legal system treats communal massacres as "natural" and as "crimes of passion", rather than what they are — namely, cold-blooded and calculated genocide organised for political ends. Rajiv Gandhi and his party gave the call for the massacre of Sikhs—he and his party were never tried in the Indian courts of law. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, with the full backing of the leadership of the BJP, gave the call for massacres of Muslims. Neither he, nor his party, can be tried for genocide.

The victims of rape in the course of such state-organised genocide are supposed to identify the particular individual rapists and try them in a court of law, under the ordinary criminal procedure code. The victims of state-organised burning and looting are supposed to find out who physically burnt them or looted them and get them convicted. What if the police, the politicians and the administrative apparatus are in collusion in perpetrating these crimes, as is generally the case in state-organised communal massacres?

Following the bestial massacre of people of the Sikh faith in 1984 by the Congress Party, the demand emerged from amongst lawyers and jurists fighting to punish the guilty, for a law to try top officials of the state, government and ruling class parties for crimes of genocide. Following the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the communal violence that followed it in 1993, progressive forces raised the demand for a people’s ban on parties that organise such crimes. Gujarat has brought this demand to the fore in a very dramatic way.

Today, the demand is increasingly being raised by activists and organisations fighting to defend the victims of communal violence and state terrorism, that there should be laws and legal procedures to punish those in positions of power and authority for committing genocide against any section of the population. This is the crying need of the hour, if those in power and authority are not to be allowed to get away with their crimes against the people.

The working and oppressed people have to take the cause of their security and the maintenance of social peace and harmony into their own hands. The crisis of the present legal system must be utilised to push for changes in the fundamental law—so as to enable people to prosecute those parties and state functionaries that are responsible for the crime of genocide.

Back to Table of Contents

Increasing isolation and travails of the Anglo American imperialists

The Indian government, while refusing the US request for Indian troops to be sent to Iraq "for the present" on 14 July clearly indicated that the majority of the Indian people did not want Indian troops to be sent to Iraq. Thus, this decision, which was a blow only to those who had aligned themselves with the interests of the Anglo American imperialists, was widely welcomed in India and among the peace and justice loving peoples of the world. Following this refusal, the US military announced that thousands of key soldiers would be staying in Iraq indefinitely, leading to lowered morale among the US soldiers. The troops have been facing vigorous demonstrations from the people of Iraq. Several have been killed by Iraqi guerrilla fighters; by 21 July, more US troops had been killed in Iraq in 2003 than during the Gulf War of 1991.

The US imperialists, who had lobbied with New Delhi strenuously, had been hoping for a full division of 17,000 mercenary troops, which would have made India the second largest military presence in Iraq after the US. Currently, though 19 countries have a troop presence in Iraq, only about 13,000 (most of them British), are non-US troops, compared with about 147,000 Americans. According to news reports, the US imperialists had been particularly eager to enlist the Indians, because their presence would have made it easier for them to obtain troops from numerous other countries as well. Occupation forces from other countries, like Pakistan, have been asked to take over the burden of the Americans in return for some lucre to the ruling cliques of these countries. While the US and Britain spurned the United Nations in their drive to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, today they are attempting to get some legitimacy and assistance for their illegal occupation through the involvement of the UN.

The US set up a governing council in Iraq on 10 July as part of its efforts to have an administration with "Iraqi faces". In the manner of British colonialists, they have drawn members of this council from "different races and groups", thus attempting to divide the polity on the basis of religion, on a communal basis. One of the first acts of the council was to declare the day of occupation of Iraq by the Anglo–American imperialists as a holiday, a day of national celebration! No wonder it is regarded as illegitimate by the vast majority of Iraqis! Following the declaration of the setting up of the Council, there have been vigorous protests. "No, no to the United States, No, no to Israel, No, no to the Governing Council" have been the slogans heard all over. As one of the Imams opposing it said, "This Governing Council is rejected and unacceptable because it divides Iraq into groups and races.. It is planting the seeds of hostility between the sons of this society.... It does not serve the interests of the people or the nation." Many Iraqis are demanding the formation of a directly elected body, rather than one hand picked by the occupiers.

In his State of the Union address in January 2003, while trying to make the people of the US believe that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a great threat to world peace, US President George Bush had stated that this regime had tried to purchase uranium in Africa. Bush did so, despite a warning from the US State Department that the reports of Iraq buying uranium from Niger were "highly dubious"! British Premier Blair had, on 24 September2002 published a dossier claiming Iraq could deploy some chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes notice, and that it had sought uranium in Africa. Not only the US State Department, but also the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US had expressed reservations to British authorities before Britain published its intelligence dossier. In a briefing for reporters, a senior US official admitted the lies but tried to defend his chieftain, saying that "the president .. is not a fact checker"! Addressing the US Congress, Blair admitted that there was the possibility that "we have got it wrong", but said that he was convinced that "history will judge" the Anglo – American coalition "kindly" because "a murderous regime has been removed".

Towards the end of May, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported British government’s deliberate fabrications citing unnamed sources. The Blair government went on a witch-hunt to trace and punish the source of this embarrassing revelation. David Kelly, a weapons inspector in Iraq, was driven to suicide on July 17–18. The British government and the BBC are facing a growing furore over their part in the murky affair.

The Anglo American imperialists used their enormous military might to conquer Iraq in the face of opposition from the peoples and governments of the world. They were full of bluster and attempted to demoralize the peoples with their military "victory". Events are revealing it is not easy for them to continue with their occupation. Similarly, in India, it is the opposition of the people which has made the government of India refuse to send troops to Iraq for now. It is this opposition which must be strengthened and stepped up, so that the Anglo American imperialists can be forced to leave Iraq, and be put on trial for their crimes against humanity.

Back to Table of Contents

Renewed arm twisting by the US to get immunity for war crimes

Previously, the system of justice allowed many perpetrators of genocide and heinous crimes to go scot free even though a lot of effort was made by people to have them prosecuted. A very telling recent example is that of Pinochet, the dictator whose junta overthrew the elected government of Chile in the mid-seventies and killed, tortured and incarcerated tens of thousands of people who opposed his rule. He was let off by a court on the specious plea of his being too old! Unlike the old justice of impunity that allowed Pinochet to go unpunished, the new system of justice of the ICC reflects a growing global determination to bring the worst criminals to justice.

However, the Bush administration has threatened governments with dire consequences if they refuse the US government request for agreements to keep Americans out of the reach of this International Criminal Court. The American Service members’ Protection Act (ASPA) revokes military assistance to countries that have ratified the ICC treaty unless they conclude a separate bilateral agreement with the United States by July 1, 2003, agreeing never to hand over US personnel to the ICC.

In recent times, imperialist military forces, especially those of the US, have committed genocide and very serious crimes. These include unwarranted bombings of unarmed civilians in Vietnam, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, in the Gulf War, in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. They have indulged in rape and murder of people, killing and torture and incarceration of prisoners of war in inhuman conditions, and more. All those who cherish human values abhor such crimes, hence the pressure on governments to set up and participate in an international system of justice to punish those guilty of such crimes.

The US imperialists are the foremost criminals in these matters and it is clear that there are many incidents for which they can be prosecuted. Events in Afghanistan, Iraq and the incarceration camps they have set up in the Caribbean show that they have no intention whatsoever of ceasing to commit such crimes. Hence the Bush administration is strongly opposed to the Court, and has cited "concerns" that "Americans would be unfairly singled out for politically motivated prosecutions abroad".

For the past one year, the US diplomatic corps has been conducting a campaign to persuade countries around the globe to sign such bilateral agreements. These agreements take away the right of other governments to choose how to address crimes committed on their own territory. For example, under long-accepted legal principles, the Bangladesh government is entitled to prosecute an American for committing murder on the streets of Dacca. Similarly, in the case of atrocities committed on its territory, Bangladesh can choose to delegate prosecuting power to the ICC. The agreements which the US government is forcing other governments to sign are subverting established legal principles, creating an unequal system of international justice in which its own military and other officials cannot be prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed anywhere on the globe.

The strong arm tactics used by the US include many despicable instances such as those listed below:

• US ambassador Blankenship publicly warned the Bahamas that if they did not support the US position on the ICC, a significant amount of US aid, including aid for paving and lighting an airport runway, would be withheld.
• On May 23, 2003, US Assistant Secretary of State Rademaker told foreign ministers of the CARICOM that they would lose the benefits of the New Horizons program (to provide hurricane relief to countries at risk from tropical storms, rural dentistry and veterinary programs) if they did not sign bilateral agreements with the US.
• The Comoros has been informed by the US that a previously promised USAID project has been relocated to Djibouti following the latter’s signing of a bilateral agreement.
• Colombia will not receive the $5 million military aid previously agreed upon since its government has not yet agreed to secure immunity for the 400 US troopers stationed in Colombia from possible prosecution at the ICC
• According to a senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official of Niger, the United States has threatened to suspend cooperative development projects if his country does not sign a bilateral agreement
• Before Bosnia’s ratification of an agreement, foreign minister Ivanic said that the US had clearly told his country that was that it would be "very difficult to continue military and other assistance" if it did not sign.
• Countries like Egypt, Israel, Argentina and Brazil (non-NATO allies) were also given deadlines to comply with US requirements.

Nevertheless, despite a year-long campaign by the U.S. diplomatic corps, only about 48 countries have signed such agreements so far, the majority of them small and poor countries that have not ratified the ICC treaty anyway and therefore have no obligation to transfer US personnel to the court. There are indications that some of the South American governments may take a joint stand against the US imperialist demands for immunity from prosecution for war crimes.

This arm twisting by the US imperialists must be stoutly opposed and checked by all peace and justice - loving people and governments. The US imperialists need to be forced to render account to the peoples of the world for all their crimes against humanity!

Back to Table of Contents

Prospects for peace in South Asia

If there is so much to be gained from peace in South Asia, why has it been so elusive? Why has the history of this subcontinent since 1947 been so full of wars and hostility, especially between India and her neighbours? To answer this question, it is necessary to analyse who gains from war and hostility in South Asia.

When colonial rule came to an end in 1947, the British imperialists engineered the partitioning of India through communal violence and mass displacement of millions of people. This was done to ensure that the nations and peoples of South Asia would remain politically weak and divided. The British Indian State and its territory was divided into two parts and handed over to two hostile factions of the big capitalists, big landlords and feudal elements who collaborated with British colonialism.

Thus, from the beginning, it is imperialism that has stood to gain from hostility between India and Pakistan. This is the case at the present time as well. The US imperialists, for instance, use the disputes between India and Pakistan to entrench themselves deeper and deeper in this region. The US and other imperialist powers are also entrenching themselves in Bangladesh, in Sri Lanka and in Nepal.

Today, the biggest danger to the freedom and sovereignty of the peoples and peace in this region stems from the drive of US imperialism to establish its unrivalled domination over Asia and the whole world. It also stems from the reactionary ambitions of bourgeois ruling cliques in the region, and their refusal to address the historical problems, including the legacy of colonial enslavement and the negation of the rights of nations and peoples.

There are chauvinist forces among the bourgeoisie of India and Pakistan, which seek to gain from war and hostility between the two countries. Communal and chauvinistic propaganda against the neighbouring country is regularly used by bourgeois parties and communalists in India and in Pakistan, to divert attention from domestic problems and profit from the hostility. Various monopoly capitalists in the arms industry use warmongering and the arms race to amass private profits at the maximum possible rate. The Indian big bourgeoisie, at the head of the second most populous country in the world, is pursuing an imperialist course and seeks to profit from imperialist war and armed occupation of other countries.

One of the major sources of danger and threat to peace in South Asia comes from the unprincipled foreign policy followed by the governments of both India and Pakistan. Instead of defending national sovereignty and blocking the path to foreign imperialist interference, the policies followed by these two governments have facilitated increasing imperialist penetration and interference in South Asia.

The US occupation of Afghanistan, for instance, was facilitated by the role played by the governments of India and Pakistan. Far from opposing US military interference in the region, the governments of both India and Pakistan vied with each other to be counted as the more trusted ally of the US imperialists and their "war on terrorism". Both propagated the imperialist lie that Afghanistan was the source of terrorism and thereby justified the imperialist aggression and armed occupation of that country. Pakistan allowed its land, sea and air facilities to be used for this colonial conquest. Today, the growing US influence and domination in Pakistan is a fact of life, with the Americans having control of key military bases in that country. Increasing Indo-US military collaboration is also a reality.

The consistent refusal of the Government of India to address the Kashmir problem, the policy of denying that there is any problem and blaming Pakistan for all the violence and insecurity, has enabled the US and British imperialists to step up their interference in the subcontinent as "peace-makers". The refusal of the Nepalese ruling clique to address the problems of the people there has created a favourable situation for foreign imperialist interference, including Indian interference. In Sri Lanka, the US imperialists, Japan and other imperialist powers are using the situation of protracted civil war to establish their stranglehold. The terrible economic plight of the people of Bangladesh is being used to justify open US interference in the governance of that country.

In order to strengthen the prospects for peace and block the path to imperialist aggression and war in this region, the peoples of India, Pakistan and other countries of South Asia must demand and fight for anti-imperialist foreign policies on the part of their respective governments. They must demand the following two principles, at a minimum, on an immediate basis.

First, no space must be given by any government in South Asia to the Anglo-American war machine – which means no military or naval base, no refueling or overflight rights to US or British warplanes, etc. This implies that such space already given must be withdrawn.

Second, every government in South Asia must agree that all regional problems and disputes will be discussed bilaterally and multilaterally between the states of South Asia, but not with any outside power behind the backs of other South Asian states.

All political forces who defend foreign imperialist interference in the region under any pretext, be it for "peace-making" or for "fighting cross-border terrorism" or "fighting insurgency" — must be exposed as enemies of peace and freedom of the peoples of South Asia.

A third principle which needs to guide the struggle for peace and national sovereignty is the necessity to end the colonial legacy, by establishing new political arrangements, on new foundations. Instead of the State as an instrument of empire building, which is the legacy of colonialism, the peoples of South Asia need instruments and arrangements that recognise and defend the rights of nations, nationalities and tribal peoples. They need democratic renewal of their respective political systems and processes.

The prospects for peace in South Asia depend, in the final analysis, on whether the anti-imperialist and peace-loving forces in this subcontinent will be able to prevail over the imperialist warmongering forces and their collaborators.

The cause of peace in South Asia cannot be left in the hands of the traitorous bourgeois classes and their parties in power. The workers and peasants of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other countries of the region need to take the cause of peace into their own hands. They must wage this struggle as an integral part of the struggle for democratic renewal – that is, to take the anti-colonial struggle through to completion.

Back to Table of Contents

Vigilance is needed

Despite the temporary respite, it would be worthwhile for us to remind ourselves of some very basic elements of India’s response and behaviour to the atrocity that is being perpetrated against Iraq. It took the Government considerable amount of time to actually make a statement against the US led invasion. It could not so much as bring itself to condemn the invasion, and satisfied itself with a combination of regret and condemnation. The NDA Government has shamed the people of India with its spinelessness, and its continued looking out for ‘opportunities’ to please the imperialist powers. It seems that the final decision to not participate in policing Iraq at this point is related to India’s having to bear the expenditure for troop deployment and maintenance as well as fear of public opinion turning against it if Indian troops die in Iraq. It is not out of a position of principle that the present decision has arisen.

The claim of participation under a United Nations mandate also requires a close examination. In the past, the United Nations has deployed peace keeping forces around the world in regions of conflict, e.g.,Cyprus. Now, the present conflict in Iraq is a war on the peace — as such the idea that in this scenario peace-keepers are needed there defies any logic. If at all, peace keepers should be deployed by the UN, it should be in the US and UK in order to prevent these warlike nations from deploying their troops all over the world! Thus any United Nations mandate for troop deployment would require a serious discussion of what the purpose of such a troop deployment would be. Furthermore, the persistent reference to the United Nations by India is a reminder that it has not lost its ambition of securing a permanent seat on the Security Council. The official circles in India feel that they should be treated in the comity of nations on par with China and enjoy those privileges and not be considered on par with other smaller countries, especially Pakistan.

India should give up all kinds of machinations and instead play a principled role. It can earn the respect of other countries by being a model for resolving conflicts through peaceable means and arguing for the elimination of force in disputes. The people of India must call upon the Government to take a principled position in the current and ongoing crisis in Iraq and not take up opportunist positions in order win this or that guarantee from the powerful nations.

G Rajan, Chennai

Back to Table of Contents

The struggle to end communalism and communal violence

This is the second and concluding part of the essay, of which the first part appeared in the July 16-31 issue of this paper. While the first part dealt with the communal foundations of the British colonial state in India, this part deals with the communal foundations of the present-day Indian State and its Constitution. It also presents a critique of the position of those within the communist movement who are calling on workers and peasants to defend the "secular foundations of the Indian State". It concludes that the struggle to end communalism and communal violence will be crowned with victory if and only if it is waged with the perspective and aim of establishing a new fundamental law, that is a new Constitution laid down by the workers and peasants, and a new State that would safeguard the rights enshrined in the new Constitution.

The Constituent Assembly, which formulated the Constitution of the Indian Republic adopted on January 26, 1950, was elected on a communal basis. That is, it was set up on the basis of defining India as consisting of Hindus, Muslims and other ‘religious communities’, without recognising the different nations and nationalities or the different economic classes that make up India in concrete material terms. The Constituent Assembly was made up of ‘representatives’ of the ‘majority’ and the ‘minority’ communities, defined on the basis of dividing the polity into religious communities. This communally constituted body carried on its work in the midst of the partition engineered by the colonialists and the widespread communal carnage that accompanied it. One of its main tasks was to formulate the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, in such a way that it appeared ‘secular’ while giving space for communal activities to flourish.

Participating in the debate in the Constituent Assembly, one of its members, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, asked, "Why do you say Muslims are in a minority? So long as you depict them in communal colours, Muslims shall remain a minority……I am telling you that as long as the Constituent Assembly is not elected on a non-communal basis, you have no right to get this Constitution passed in this Constituent Assembly. No matter receives a consideration from you, because you are inflated with the idea that you are in a majority and whatever you like will be passed. Do not imagine that no blame will come to you. I am alone, and I am saying all I can say. You may not agree. In reality you are doing all that the British government had been doing…"

Ignoring such objections, the Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly that was elected on a communal basis was adopted by the leaders of the Congress Party, who dominated the Assembly at a time when the Communist Party of India was banned and the Muslim League was dissolved following the Partition. The Constitution did not draw anything from the experience of the struggles of the Indian people against colonialism or their struggle against medievalism and the hated caste order before the colonialists arrived. It drew instead from the experience of the British colonialists and their divide and rule strategy, as well as the experience of other colonialists and empire builders around the world.

In the typical style of European bourgeois constitutions, the Constitution of India affirms a certain right or restriction in one clause, only to contradict it in the next clause. The first clause of Article 28 stipulates, for instance, that "No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds". This is an affirmation that the State shall safeguard the right of all children to scientific education. But the second clause says, "Nothing in Clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution, which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution". In practice, use of state funds for religious education and communal propaganda has flourished and expanded over the past 55 years even though the Indian State and its Constitution are supposed to have ‘secular foundations’.

Each time that the communal face of the Indian State has been exposed in state-organised communal violence, the Indian working class and people have been told that "it will not happen again". The impression is created each time that the communal killings are an aberration from the system, which allegedly has secular foundations. But the historical experience of the past 53 years of the Indian Republic has shown that communalism and communal violence are not an aberration. They are a component part of the Indian State.

According to Article 44 of the Constitution, "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India". However, over 53 years later, the people of India are not governed by a uniform law when it comes to marriage, divorce, adoption or inheritance of family property. There is no legal provision, for instance, for Muslim or Christian parents in India to adopt children with inheritance rights. This is also not some aberration but part of the essential nature of the Indian State, which first asks its citizen his or her religion and caste before applying its laws or dispensing justice.

The refusal to implement the declaration of Article 44 has been presented to the people of India as a sign of secularism, in the form of being ‘tolerant’ and ‘sensitive’ to the minorities. Writing about the Muslim Personal Law, late Shri M. C. Chagla, a former Chief Justice, Member of Parliament, and Union Minister said in 1973: "Consider the attitude of the government to the question of Uniform Civil code. Although the Directive Principle of the state enjoins such a code, government has refused to do anything about it on the plea that the minorities will resent any attempt at imposition.... I wholly and emphatically disagree with this view. The Constitution is binding on everyone, majority and minority, and if the Constitution contains a directive, that directive must be accepted and implemented ... I am horrified to find in my country while monogamy has been made the law for Hindus, Muslims can still indulge in polygamy. It is an insult to womanhood and Muslim women, I know, resent this discrimination between Muslim women and Hindu women."

Shri. M. C. Chagla also said, "Government’s policy … may serve as a vote catching device to win Muslim votes, but I do not believe in sacrificing national interests in order to get temporary party benefits…The Congress government has often followed what I can call the old British policy of communalism." Coming from the mouth of a seasoned Congress Party leader, this is a rare confession indeed.

A glaring example of the "old British policy of communalism" was Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to overrule the Supreme Court in the Shah Banu case in the mid-eighties. It was a decision aimed at attacking the progressive movement amongst women and among the people at large. At the same time, it provided ammunition to the anti-Muslim communalists that the Indian State was ‘appeasing the minorities’.

It is a fact that for 52 years, the Muslim personal law has been retained to keep the hold of the backward clergy and the communalists over the poor masses of the Muslim faith. It has been used to keep the Muslim vote bank consolidated behind the Congress Party or some ‘secular front’, as well as to give a weapon to the BJP and others to charge that Muslims are being ‘favoured’.

All the available facts show that the Indian State, its constitution, its political process of multi-party representative democracy, its bureaucracy, army and police — are all communal. The Indian State is communal at its very foundations. It is precisely because the foundations of this State are communal that political parties in power have been able to use this State for organising communal violence. They have done so repeatedly and with increasing frequency since 1947. It is because the State is communal that such parties are able to get away without being punished for their crimes.

The struggle against communalism and communal violence in India today is an integral part of the struggle of the working class and peasantry against capitalism and the imperialist bourgeois offensive, and for deep-going social transformation. The duty of communists is to make the working class and its allies conscious of this fact, including the fact that the Indian State has communal foundations. Communists must make the people conscious that it is the ruling bourgeoisie that is using communalism and communal violence to divert and drown in blood the struggles of the workers and peasants. Those who are calling on the workers and peasants to defend the ‘secular foundations’ of the Indian State against the ‘communal forces’ are acting in the opposite direction. They are preventing the working class and peasantry from identifying the real source of communalism and communal violence.

The call to defend the ‘secular foundations’ of the Indian State flies in the face of the life experience of the Indian working class and peasantry, which shows that it is the Indian State itself which is to blame for communal violence. Whether it is the Ayodhya dispute or it is the Best Bakery case in Gujarat, the class conciliators in the communist movement call on the workers and peasants to place their faith in the ‘rule of law’ of the Indian State. They are doing so at a time when increasing numbers of people are asking how this ‘rule of law’ can be trusted when it is precisely those in positions of power and authority – the keepers of the law — who are the organisers of communal violence in the first place. The laws and the courts are instruments in the hands of those who organise communal violence in order to prolong the life of the capitalist imperialist system and the colonial legacy of plunder.

The Updated Party Programme published by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in April 2000 says, "The secular principle is enshrined in the Constitution and the values of secular democracy are proclaimed by the big bourgeois leadership of the State. However, the practice of secularism by the bourgeoisie has been flawed". In other words, the CPI (M) program conciliates with the bourgeois notion that the political theory underlying the existing Indian State and its Constitution is just fine, while the problem lies only in practical implementation.

This position of CPI(M) is in tune with the propaganda of the bourgeoisie that the foundations of the Indian State are secular and that there are only problems with this or that party. It follows from this that what is required is not a revolution to smash the existing state machine, as Marx and Lenin taught. What is required, according to the ‘Marxist’ leaders of CPI(M), is to purify the Indian State by dislodging the BJP and the Sangh Parivar from their current positions.

The April 2000 program of CPI (M) also says, "While defending the right of every religious community — whether it is the majority or the minorities — as well as those who have no faith in any religion to believe in and practice any religion or none at all, the Party should fight against all forms of intrusion of religion in the economic, political and administrative life of the nation and uphold secular and democratic values in culture, education and society. The danger of fascist trends gaining ground, based on religious communalism must be firmly fought at all levels".

It is to be noted that by referring to "the right of every religious community — whether it is the majority or the minorities", the program of CPI(M) is dividing Indian society on the basis of ideas and not on the basis of material reality. It is promoting the outlook that India consists of Hindus, Muslims, other religious groups and non-believers. This is a negation of the materialist outlook that India consists of workers, peasants and other economic classes and that India also consists of various nations, nationalities and tribal peoples.

It is indisputable that every individual in society has the right to his or her conscience, which means the right to follow one’s chosen system of beliefs, including religious or non-religious beliefs of any kind. Communists defend the right to conscience as a matter of principle. But they do not divide the polity on the basis of ideology and religious beliefs.

The right to conscience belongs to the realm of individual rights, and must not be confused with the rights of collectives. Collective rights also have an objective basis in the fact that Indian society consists of different classes and different nations, nationalities and tribal peoples. There are some minority rights that emerge from the fact that this or that religious or national minority is discriminated against or has been the target of communal attacks in the past. However, there is no reason for communists to accept the false proposition that there is a ‘Hindu majority community’ in India, with its own set of ‘rights’, as is implied by talking about "the right of every religious community — whether it is the majority or the minorities". There is no reason for communists to negate the material reality that it is the workers and peasants who constitute the majority in Indian society.

By asserting that a united front of ‘secular’ parties to fight against the ‘communal fascism’ of BJP is the immediate task, the advocates of this line are serving to sabotage the struggle to end communalism and communal violence. They are spreading demoralisation among the fighting forces, and lining them up as vote banks for the bourgeois opposition.

All activists in the working class movement must reject the call to defend the ‘secular foundations’ of the Indian State. The Indian working class has the strategic aim and historic role of being the gravedigger of Indian capitalism, the destroyer of the colonial and imperialist Indian State and its communal foundation, and the builder of a new Indian Union on modern democratic foundations. It has the responsibility to set up a State that would safeguard the rights of the workers and peasants as well as the national rights of all the constituents.

Communalism and communal violence are preferred methods of rule used by the exploiters of the Indian working class and people, methods developed by the British colonialists and further perfected by the Indian bourgeoisie. They are part and parcel of the foundations of the Indian State. Hence one cannot rely on the existing State and its ‘rule of law’, either for immediate justice or to get rid of this evil of communal violence once and for all.

The struggle for immediate demands, such as the demand for punishment to the guilty parties, must be waged with the perspective and the vision of establishing a new fundamental law, a new Constitution and a new State of the workers and peasants. The worker-peasant state would safeguard the rights of every individual and collective in society. It will severely punish anyone or any party that violates the rights of any member of society. Such a State will not only carry out anti-communal propaganda and scientific education on a consistent basis but also crush with an iron hand anyone who dares to attack any member of society on a communal basis.

Workers, peasants, women, youth and all those who have taken up the battle against communalism and communal violence need to build their own organs of struggle, by relying on their own combined strength, for defending the rights and unity of the people. They also need to build one all-India level popular political front against the anti-social offensive of world imperialism and the Indian bourgeoisie, based on the worker-peasant alliance.

The best of Indian thought recognises that a right is inseparable from duty. A State that does not perform its duty to the individual members of society, including even the most basic duty of safeguarding their right to life, cannot demand their loyalty as its right. When the State fulfils its duty to provide for the security and well being of all, then every individual must fulfil his or her duty to defend and strengthen such a State. We have the duty to create such a State today, as it does not exist at this time.

Those within the communist movement who are calling for the defence of the ‘secular foundations’ of the existing Indian State and for a ‘secular front’ with the Congress and other bourgeois parties, are serving to subordinate the growing mass opposition to communalism and communal violence to a narrow agenda—of replacing the BJP by the Congress Party or some other bourgeois coalition. The result would be to continue with the same system, the same class rule and the same anti-social program and divide-and-rule strategy. Thus, the advocates of this line are serving the strategy of imperialism and the Indian bourgeoisie to divert the working class movement from the road of revolution, and to keep it as a tail of bourgeois parliamentary opposition, so as to preserve the status quo.

Life experience is daily providing further evidence that the Indian State is the principal instrument for communalising the Indian polity. Far from becoming despondent, the progressive forces must treat this as the signal for moving forward. The times are calling for a clean break with the ‘secularism’ of the Indian State and the Congress Party, and with all illusions about the Indian State. The times are calling on communists to provide revolutionary leadership to the mass struggles, with the perspective and program for the democratic renewal of India – that is the establishment of a new Indian Union, a new arrangement wherein the workers and peasants will be the masters of society.

Back to Table of Contents

Supreme Court decision tramples on the right of workers to strike

In a travesty of justice, the Supreme Court, in its judgement on a case challenging the dismissal of 1.7 lakh government employees by the Tamil Nadu government by invoking the amended Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, blamed the employees for resorting to a strike and "holding the State to ransom" and "bringing the administration to a grinding halt".

Adding insult to injury, it suggested to the government to "show magnanimity and grace" and take back the 1.7 lakh sacked employees if they tender an unconditional apology for participating in the "illegal strike" and, furthermore, promise never to undertake such actions again in the future!

The Bench consisting of two judges declared that "compassion" may be shown only to those who have not been imprisoned during the strike. Those who have been arrested on charges of "violence" and "arson" will not be covered under this ruling.

Citing an earlier strike by the lawyers where again the Supreme Court declared the strike as illegal, the bench condoned the action of the State saying that the "State has taken appropriate action as there is no alternative today to deal with strikes".

Thus, in a sweeping judgement, which has grave portent for the entire working class of the country, the apex court has declared that workers have no right to strike and no right to fight for their just demands. In this instance, the government employees were forced to go on strike when the State government unilaterally withdrew their right to pension, bonus and other benefits citing the "precarious" position of the State treasury. The government employees had questioned the motives of the State government, which had handed over concessions amounting to crores of rupees for the big capitalists during the last two years while cutting down on commitments made to the employees.

When the workers’ counsel argued that the ordinance was one of the most draconian piece of legislation in the statute book and that it violated many provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dismissed it with the fascist lie that "strike as a weapon is always misused which results in chaos and maladministration". It further declared that "there is no Constitutional provision under which the government employees can claim as a matter of right to go on strike".

The latest judgement of the Supreme Court confirms the fact once again that the working class cannot expect justice from any arm of the state, whether it be the legislative, the executive or the judiciary. The apex court’s judgements in this case, as well as in several other cases related to the deprivation of livelihood of workers through privatisation, tears apart the façade that the judiciary is an independent body meant to dispense justice even against the interests of the executive, if need be. The truth is that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary form the three arms of the bourgeois state whose raison d’etre is to protect the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class and other oppressed classes. The working class cannot expect one arm of the bourgeois state to set right the faults of the other arm in violating its right to life and livelihood.

The strike launched by the government workers in Tamil Nadu and the fascist way in which it has been countered by the state points to the need for the immediate and thoroughgoing renewal of Indian society involving the dismantling of the entire state apparatus and erecting in its place a state that defends the interests of the working people.

Back to Table of Contents

A warning signal for working Indian class

Furthermore, I also find it fit to quote from the Deccan Herald of July 18, 2003, reporting on the end of the strike, and the policy of the Government towards reinstatement of the dismissed employees: "...While no mercy is to be shown to union leaders and others who took an active part in the strike, others may be taken back, but not immediately....The government also plans to use this occasion, when the unions stand thoroughly demoralised, to implement the R Swaminathan Commission recommendation to downsize departments."

No trade union leader who has his or her eyes open can now ignore what the near future has in store. This watershed development has created a precedent for the manner in which state and central Governments plan to deal with labour unrest in future. All unions may now start addressing the question of how to orient their work in the changing scenario. The first task is to move towards a situation where one factory will have one union, one working class will have one agenda and one humanity will have one struggle. The bourgeoisie will seek to disorient the working masses and the labouring classes by perpetuating the system of giving them several different platforms to divide and weaken themselves. The working class must not allow this to happen.

Sincerely,

A. Narayan, Bangalore

Back to Table of Contents