Wednesday, October 12, 2016


 "'M.' [Stalinist]" <> wrote:

There's a myth Trotskyites and bourgeois scholars like to perpetuate that near the end of Lenin's life he wanted to get rid of Stalin, or at least reduce his "power" and influence in the Soviet state apparatus.

Lately I've been reading Stephen Kotkin's "Stalin Volume 1: Paradoxes of Power 1878-1928". It is less biased than many of the usual academic / bourgeois / "Sovietologist" biographies of Stalin. One interesting thing is that Kotkin concludes the so-called Lenin testament was probably faked (pgs. 418-419), which is something that MLists have been saying for many years already.



and )

But the idea that Lenin was having "second thoughts" about Stalin is contrary to all evidence, which is why the so-called testament has always seemed fishy from a historical prospective. All accounts lead to Lenin very much wanting Stalin at the head of the party:

"Lenin never named a successor. But in a momentous act in March 1922, he created a new post, "general secretary" of the party, expressly for Stalin. Stories would be invented, for understandable reasons, about how Lenin had never really intended to give Stalin so much power. These stories, however, are belied by the facts. Lenin had been taking Stalin into his confidence across a wide range of matters, and already in August-September 1921 he had moved Stalin nearly full time to overseeing party affairs; Stalin took to preparing politburo meeting agendas and appointing officials. True, there were two other Central Committee secretaries at that time, but Stalin was senior to both. Despite that seniority, Lenin still chose to underscore Stalin's predominant position in an appointment announced at the 11th Party Congress March 27-April 2, 1922, and formalized at an April 3 Central Committee plenum-both of which Lenin attended. Stalin was voted "general secretary" at the congress by 193 votes in favor, 16 against; the rest (273), more than half the voting delegates, effectively abstained. This was Lenin's initiative, and he certainly knew what he was doing. Just before the opening of the 11th Congress in the Kremlin, he had organized a conspiratorial meeting in a side room, gathering his most reliable followers, 27 people, to ensure election to the Central Committee of his preferred candidates against Trotsky's followers; Stalin's name was marked on Lenin's list as "general secretary." At the congress itself, where all 27 names on Lenin's list were duly elected, one delegate (Preobrazhensky) questioned how Stalin could hold so many concurrent positions, but Lenin stoutly defended his protege." (pg. 411)

Further, we already know that Trotsky spent much of his time attacking Lenin before joining the Bolsheviks in 1917:

(see: Part one up to 1914

and Part 2 up to 1917 )

However some people are still under the impression that after 1917, everything was cozy between Lenin and Trotsky, but:

"Lenin's illness also had an impact on his relations with Trotsky. No one had given him more grief. Once, at a politburo meeting, Trotsky was sitting studying the English language, then paused briefly to criticize the politburo's poor organization-causing Lenin to lose his composure. At another politburo meeting Trotsky was said to have called the Bolshevik leader "a hooligan," inducing him to turn "white as chalk." In March 1921 Lenin had deemed Trotsky "a temperamental man . . . as for policy [politika], he hasn't got a clue." In summer 1921, Lenin had taken part in a scheme to transfer Trotsky to Ukraine, a move that Trotsky, in breach of party discipline, resisted; Lenin backed down. Still, in violation of party rules, "Lenin proposed that we gather for the politburo meetings without Trotsky," Molotov recalled. "We conspired against him." Molotov, whose recollections comport with the archival record, added that "Lenin's relations with Stalin were closer, albeit on a business footing." But now, in 1922, Lenin appears to have tried to reconcile and balance Stalin and Trotsky. In summer 1922, Lenin miraculously seemed to improve-a circumstance celebrated in Pravda-and on July 11 Stalin visited him. "Ilich greeted him in friendly manner, joked, laughed, demanded that I afford Stalin hospitality, I brought wine and such," recalled Ulyanova, who added that "during this and subsequent visits they spoke about Trotsky. . . . They discussed inviting Trotsky to visit Ilich." She maintained that the invitation "had the character of diplomacy," denoting mere mollification, but it appears to have been genuine. Trotsky, although duly invited, never once came to see Lenin in Gorki in 1922.51" (pgs. 414-415)

So it looks like the reverse was actually true, and that Lenin was in fact scheming to have Trotsky out at one point, though was also open to reconciling the two (Stalin and Trotsky) even offering Trotsky the position of deputy which he refused:

"Lenin's efforts to reconcile and balance Trotsky and Stalin did not come easily. The party that Lenin had founded and Stalin now led wielded too much power. On July 20, for example, when the entire politburo, Trotsky included, resolved that "Lenin should have absolutely no meetings" without that ruling body's permission, they tasked Stalin with overseeing enforcement. Stalin tried not to overdo it. At the 12th party conference (August 4-7, 1922), the first major gathering since his appointment as general secretary-which he and his staff organized-he was observed behaving with arch-humility. "Such conduct," recalled Anastas Mikoyan, a delegate, "raised Stalin's prestige in the eyes of the delegates." Lenin's continuing confidence in Stalin's management of party affairs is copiously documented in the archives, but so is Lenin's continued desperation to do something about the Council of People's Commissars and the regime's future more broadly. On September 2, 1922, he evidently discussed with his sister Maria the ages of the leading figures and noted it would be good to have people of various age cohorts in the Central Committee, to ensure longevity. On September 11, Lenin wrote to Stalin (for the entire politburo) proposing an expansion of his formal deputies by adding Trotsky to the Council of People's Commissars and Kamenev to the Council of Labor and Defense (a parallel, if smaller, top executive body). Lenin's motives remain unclear: He was proposing to move Trotsky near the top of the government, but rather than offering him the economy portfolio, which was Trotsky's preference, Lenin seems to have wanted him to take up ideology and education, as well as second-order questions of international affairs. Was Lenin, who had just browbeaten the party to swallow the legalized markets of the New Economic Policy, concerned about Trotsky's obsession with state planning? Or was he trying to elevate Trotsky's position? It is impossible to say for sure, but it is likely Lenin had both considerations in mind: containment of Trotsky's anti-NEP impulses and balancing of Stalin's power.

"Lenin's proposal presented an immense opportunity for Trotsky to begin to lay claim to Lenin's government mantle. Stalin put Lenin's proposal before the seven members of the politburo (likely the very day he received it) for vote by telephone. Stalin, Rykov, and Kalinin ("do not object") voted with Lenin; Kamenev and Mikhail Yefremov, known as Tomsky, abstained. One person voted against Trotsky's appointment-Trotsky himself: "I categorically refuse." Trotsky's most outstanding biographer surmised that he refused because he "had no doubt that even as Lenin's deputy he would depend at every step on decisions taken by the General Secretariat which selected the Bolshevik personnel for the various government departments and by this alone effectively controlled them." Dependency on Stalin was indeed anathema to Trotsky. But equally important, Trotsky seems to have been holding out for a major overhaul of the administration to allow planning of the entire economy under his leadership. On September 12, Stalin went to see Lenin in Gorki, evidently to discuss the situation. Trotsky's stance meant that, at a politburo meeting on September 14, Kamenev alone was added to the ranks of deputies at both the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Labor and Defense, which meant he also chaired politburo meetings. "The politburo," stated its September 14 protocols, "records the categorical refusal of comrade Trotsky with regret." Trotsky's refusal-like his failure to visit Lenin at Gorki in 1922-was a choice.64" (pgs. 415-417)

There is also the idea that Stalin was not as ideologically firm as Trotsky. While it's true that Trotsky's writing are often more philosophical, it's false to claim that Stalin wasn't a firm Marxist who knew his stuff and who laid down foundations of socialism for the Soviet Union:

"It was Stalin who formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, helped make the recuperative New Economic Policy work, and spelled out the nature of Leninism for the party mass." (pg. 419)

Posted by: "M." <>




Thursday, September 29, 2016


A Critical Evalution by Prof. Thota Jyothi Rani.
View Point .
{Published in 'CLASSSTRUGGLE' organ of CPI(ML) central Committe.
It is really possible to eradicate poverty, unemployment, to improve the lives of the people in general and rural poor in particular, to free the farmer from sufferings, to end all sorts of inequalities, to attain qualitative progress in the living standards of people so as to protect the democratic values and ultimately to realize social justice only with the “Technical Education” which is expected to provide “technical skills associated with social consciousness”. This will pave the way for the process of building socio-economic structures based on equity. What is the nature and state of this highly significant “Technical Education” in present India? How is it being articulated and for whose interests? What is its effect on our structures of economy, social justice, democratic relations and human values especially in the context of intensification of corporatization of “Technical Education” in India? All these issues are to be analyzed and discussed seriously to create a favourable environment for the emergence of socially conscious technical education.
Technical education itself will not become an instrument automatically to achieve economic equality and social justice in India where all kind of inequalities based on class, caste, gender and region have been rooted strongly in the structures of society. It is not an automatic tool. It needs to be linked with the consciousness of studies of social sciences and humanities to transform it into an efficient and effective means to build the structures of society on the basis of equity and rights. It is known to all, that Albert Einstein who invented “Atom Bomb” had seriously perturbed and worried by looking at the violent effects on Hiroshima & Nagasaki during World War II. He strongly opined that “social consciousness is a necessary pre-condition for scientific and technical education”. Therefore, he categorically stated as early as in 1954 that “it is not enough to teach a person a specialty. It is essential that the student acquire an understanding of and a lively feeling for values and a vivid sense of the morally good. Otherwise, the person with specialized skills and knowledge, more closely resembles a “well-trained dog” rather than a harmoniously developed person”. The nature and pattern of use of the development, inventions and innovations of science and technology determines its effect. If it is used with the social consciousness, then it is possible to move towards ending all sorts of exploitation, oppression and violence so as to build humane structures of society.
Does the introduction of technical education in India with the perspectives of self-reliant economic development and social justice?
The emergence of industrial revolution in England resulted in the origin and development of present technical education. At that time, India was under the colonial rule of England. The then government implemented several policy measures including discriminatory tariff system to deindustrialize India to destroy technical expertise and manufacturing activity so as to transform India as a market for the survival of British machine-industries. The articulation of Indian economy according to the needs and development of England resulted in the backwardness and its perpetuation till now.
In this context, can we expect the objective of the policy measures of British Indian Government towards the development of Technical Education was really to make India as self-reliant economy?
In the Pre-Independence period, the then British Indian Government tried to expose itself that it gives importance to technical development in India and constituted a committee in 1945 under the chairmanship of N.R.Sarkar for the creation of adequate number of technically skilled persons. Why do we need adequate number of technical persons? For whose benefit? What is the real interest of British Government? To meet the post-war needs of the Britain and to revive its industrial development was the real purpose. The origin and articulation of present technical education in India itself was not from the perspective of the development of Indian economy but the needs of dominant countries especially Britain at that time. This trend has been established, expanded and strengthened strongly.
The committee in its report in 1946 has recommended that it is necessary to establish four Indian institutes of Technology (IITs) on the lines of Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] in US. However, it was astonishing to note that the government of ‘Independent’ India in the Post-Independence period wanted to invite American Team to give suggestions to establish IITs in India. The team naturally lacks perspective on the social and political realities of India. They did not search for alternative ways of technological and national development of India. They failed to achieve any co-ordination between IITs and Democratic values as well as needs of our country. This clearly states that the rulers have totally forgotten to think about our economic conditions and identify the political and social realities. Thus, the establishment of the institutes of technical education took place not to solve our problems and are totally unrelated to the challenges of our country. Therefore, their pattern of organization has been articulated according to the needs of global market and to the agenda of corporate powers. Did the IITs play any role in the economic development of our nation or in the protection of democratic values? What is the justification to allocate huge amount of scarce resources to maintain them? These are the serious questions.
What will be done by the engineering graduates trained in these institutions which have been articulated as per the agenda of corporate forces? They tempt to work in affluent countries and in multi-national corporations. They leave the country for the self-centered advantages. This phenomenon of leakage of high quality technical persons has been named as “Brain Drain” and the consequent serious harm done to the nation has been intensively discussed during 1970’s.
As early as in 1961, the “Nayudamma Committee” has seriously recommended that there is an urgent need to redesign engineering syllabus with inter-disciplinary approach and curricula should be made broad based and flexible. Moreover, it should contain substantial studies in social sciences and humanities including heavy dosages of basic and biological sciences. All this is warranted to humanize the professions as well as the professionals and technical experts. Unfortunately, the government did not put any effort to implement these recommendations which are significant for building humane socio-economic structures.
It is astonishing to note that the origin and development of privatisation has been closely associated with the development of IITs which are exclusively under the control of Central government. A mushroom growth took place in the establishment of various private coaching centers to give coaching exclusively for IIT entrance test. It is really a paradox to identify the implicit connection between seeds of privatisation and the development of institutions of technical education under the control of central government. This trend advanced further and on the name of “IIT Foundation from secondary school education”, the private corporate schools have been charging and collecting high fee and made school education more costly. This is the bitter reality of the present day.
The forward linkage of articulation of IITs according to the needs and interests of corporate forces resulted in the backward linkage of growth of privatisation. At present the number of IITs in our country are 21 when we take into account the promise of central government in its budget 2014-2015 to establish 5 IITs. These are followed by National institutes of Technology [NITs]. They are 30 in our country. The next status goes to constituent engineering colleges of universities. All these institutes of Technical Education come under public sector.
Our Technical Education sector, since its inception, has been moulded from the perspective of the interests of corporate forces and will naturally be attractive for private investments which work for profit. Therefore, the private institutes could enter and expand into the technical education sector as early as the Third five year plan and huge growth can be seen in the non-grant technical institutes that run with capitation fee from 1974-75. They could get strong support from the state governments. This trend is strong especially in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamilnadu and undivided Andhra Pradesh.
By 1985, as many as 33,578 engineering students are in private institutes while only 24,313 are in public institutes. Similar trend can be seen even at the diploma level where 62,998 students are in private institutes where as 51,927 are in public institutes. This clearly shows the relative strength of private institutes when compared to public institutes. The accelerated growth and expansion of private technical institutes resulted in the deterioration of academic standards and the quality of teaching and training. The process of termination of social consciousness among students has been strengthened.
Public policies have been formulated to accelerate privatisation in the technical education sector even prior to the entry of globalization in the name of New Economic Policy in 1990-91. The National Education Policy, 1986 will be a clear evidence for this trend. The University grants Commission has initiated various reforms according to the prescription of the policy. It is a known fact that in the era of globalization the term “reforms” itself indicates the creation of favourable environment for the development and expansion of privatisation. This resulted in the abnormal multiplication of private technical institutes which run exclusively with self-financing courses and capitation fee. At the end of Tenth Five Year Plan, their number is 45,122 and enrolment of students stand at 7.83 lakhs.
Moreover, the State governments have formulated Private University Acts to legalise the process of Privatisation of Technical education. The domination of Private sector in the institutes related to engineering and management has been increased with the establishment of Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University [JNTU] in the undivided Andhra Pradesh, the best example for this trend. 1) How many people have the capacity to pay the high fee charged by these institutions? 2) What is the guarantee of profits for the managements of these private technical institutes? In order to solve the second problem i.e., to give guarantee to the profits for private managements, the government has introduced ‘Fee Reimbursement Programme’ in the name of ‘provision of corporate technical education to the poor is the responsibility of the government’.
The pro-corporate measure has successfully been shown as pro-poor measure. Moreover, is it not shame on the part of government to state ‘corporate’ is superior to public institutions? These private managements possess enormous political strength. Further, they successfully misused the ‘Fee Reimbursement Programme’ in various ways to appropriate government funds and became further rich. The constitution of ‘Vigilance Committees’ in Telangana in recent days, to arrest the misuse of funds, indicates the extent of misappropriation of government funds. Meanwhile, they stopped ‘Fee reimbursement’. The management class, which could appropriate all the benefits from this programme so far, have been throwing the incidence of burden from stoppage of fee-reimbursement onto the teachers and staff. It is very difficult for the teachers to survive without pay for months together. Their lives became miserable. In fact, working in these institutes itself is very difficult as always they have to prove that they are profitable to the institute.
Many people are of the opinion that the real intention behind the stoppage of fee-reimburse ment is to create a favourable environment for the initiation of insurance-based technical education system as “the provision of loans for education”. This “creation of insurance-based education system” is a strong proposal of the World Bank. The remaining programme is to weaken public institutions so as to encourage private institutions. This resulted in the shortage of teachers in prestigious institutes to the extent of 36 percent in IITs and 41 percent in NITs. Private engineering colleges, whose sole aim is profit, are appointing fresh B.Tech graduates to teach B.Tech students. Enrolment of engineering students in these institutions stands at 15 lakhs, while the shortage of teachers is as high as 80,000. This is the state [fate] of so called “efficient” private colleges. Out of 15 lakh engineering graduates, only 5 percent are going to PG level. It is astonishing to note that as low as 1 percent of them could go upto Ph.D level. However, the standards are controversial. Everybody knows that the research basically lacks seriousness, sincerity and discipline. Is it possible to expect to realize the recommendation of Nayudamma Committee - “research towards humanizing professions”?
Keeping aside the characteristics of social conscious ness, respect for democratic values, self-confidence, self-respect, protesting injustice, fight for justice that an engineering graduate is expected to possess, do they deserve their degrees in terms of at least expertise? The phenomenon of “Easy going” which is created and strengthened by the process of globalization is the answer for that question. On one hand, they study in private colleges, and on the other, to learn additional knowledge in IT and computers they move around private coaching centres which can be seen everywhere on the roads. The public sector leads to private, private leads to private. Privatisation and its expansion is like octopus. If the purpose of education is to meet the needs of market then it will be dictated by private sector only. Though the education is linked to employment, the estimates of National Association of Software and services Company [NASSCOM] reveals the bitter fact that out of 85 percent engineering students who belong to self-financing engineering colleges, as low as less than 20 percent could get jobs. What is the fate of unemployed engineering graduates? They cannot earn anything for their livelihood. They are useful neither to themselves nor to the society. These self-centred, easy going youth will not question the imperialist exploitation and the domination of corporate forces. Of course World Bank wants and perpetuates this kind of tendency. Moreover, the youth who are caught in the lure of luxurious life have been forced to become criminals and earn something through the activities of fraud. The media is disclosing about the lives of women where they are compelled to become sex-workers sometimes. All these deterioration and decay is the result of corporatization of technical education. Still, Public policies have been formulated to intensify this crisis is the biggest tragedy.
What is the nature of Public Policies? The intensification of the crisis due to government decisions and public policies is because of the fact that they declare the cause of the problem as the solution. Public policies have been formulated to invite corporate institutes by stating “Corporatisation of technical education is the only way to achieve development”. Now corporate companies can start courses with the permission of AICTE. With this, the government states that it is possible to raise the enrolment ratio to 21 percent by 2017. The department of Human Resource Development Ministry has been initiating various reforms to accelerate corporatisation of technical education. Now, the challenge, they feel is how to attract corporate investments? For this, they chose the model of Public-Private Partnership [PPP] and Build-Operate-transfer-Model [BOOT]. It is a fact that both the models are pro-corporate and anti-people.
It is stunning to note the statement of government and its network that as technical education is profitable to the private sector and corporate forces, it is their responsibility to make investment in this sector. This explicitly states the abandonment of the goals of the social justice and the protection of democratic values.
The issue is what kind of technical education and for whose benefit does the corporate sector provides technical education? The technical education “will be for the corporate sector, of the corporate sector and by the corporate sector”. The approach itself is corporate forces-centred, while people’s interest is totally missing in it.
The National Knowledge Commission which is popularly known as Yashpal Committee estimates that there is a need to establish more than 1000 universities and more than 10,000 colleges to raise the enrolment ratio in the Higher Education sector. Moreover, it is necessary to attract High-Calibre teachers and encourage research. It concludes that all this will be possible only through corporatisation. According to the estimates of this committee, the market value of our Higher Education sector is 20 billion US dollars. Therefore, it requires an investment of 20 billion US Dollars in the next 10-12 years. Who will make investment at this level? It is possible only for the corporate forces. Therefore, the question is how to attract these forces? A forthcoming white paper of confederation of Indian Industry [CII] entitled “Discovering New Models of Increasing Private Participation in Higher Education” is expected to address the issues of quantification of investment required, identification of sources of funds, the level of private participation required, the experiences of various countries and how to take loan from World Bank and Asian Development Bank. All this is a clear evidence of mortgaging our technical education to corporate forces on the name of raising enrolment ratio, provision of quality education and bridge rural-urban divide.
However it is not the indepen dent decision of our government to corporatize technical education. It is because of the strong inter national pressures, especially the pressure of the World Bank.
What are those International Pressures? What are its effects?
The dominant capitalist countries along with their local network could succeed in creating conditions to compel major socialist countries to step backward which resulted in the end of ideological confrontation.
This cleared the way for aggressive and arrogant growth of capitalist system. The capitalist/corporate forces could unite strongly. The emergence and accelerated growth of globalization is the result of the consolidation of the corporate forces. The World Bank could play key and strategic role to create ideological basis as well as real conditions to strengthen this trend. The corporate forces will sustain and continue without any questioning if they control education sector with which they can direct and dictate youth and mould them accordingly to their needs. They can command entire structures of economy. Consequently imperialist exploitation will continue without any hindrance. In this process, the World Bank released a report in 1994 entitled “Higher Education - Lessons of Experience”. This created a strong basis to eradicate government control over higher education system including Technical and professional education, to strengthen privatisation and ultimately to bring the higher education system under complete control of corporate forces.
The process of intensi-fication of privatisation results in the demise of courses that are called as intellectual capital which is an essential pre-requisite for the social progress. The engineering and management courses assumed significance. Moreover, the courses related to computers and IT became the indicators of knowledge. The youth who are trained in these lines always tries for opportunities in foreign countries and high salary package jobs at any cost but will not have any kind of social consciousness. They are totally illiterates about social justice and human relations. No self-respect at all. Moreover, they are characterized by timidness which results in the tolerance of all kinds of oppression, exploitation and injustice. The youth with slave mentality is very much essential for the sustenance of imperialist exploitation.
To stiffen this trend and to establish the argument that ‘There is no alternative for corporatization’ World Bank has released a report entitled “Constructing knowledge Societies: New challenges for Tertiary education” in 2002. The essence of the report is that Higher Education means engineering and Management courses and this kind of education will be provided effectively only by corporate forces. No one else will process the capability.
The corporatized institutes of Technical education will naturally take the form of big business corporations in the market. Their strong assumption is that the “Market is the solution for every problem”. Therefore, deep knowledge is unnecessary. The student will become customer or client. The courses are offered on the basis of market demand. No need to think about the requirements of people or society. No place for morality.
The regulations are to be followed- that’s all. The techniques are above to all the values. The wage differentiation will be so great where no two individual employees in any organization will have same wage. No question of unionization and consolidation. The employees cannot unite on any issue. No employment on permanent basis. The casualization will be a dominant phenomenon. The institution of education has been managed as a company. The low standards will be the actual phenomenon. They follow ‘Market Driven Strategy’. The public institutes will be thrown on to ‘Death Bed. No one will be there to debate and discuss about the society critically. If the Nobel Prize awardees spoke on these issues, then it is ok. Prior to corporatization, any ordinary normal academic person can talk about social issues where as now the moral leadership is totally transferred to Nobel laureates. Therefore any normal academic either teacher or student will have no autonomy to speak or discuss about social issues and democratic values. If they speak, they are termed as criminals and terrorists and liable for legal action. The incidents of University of Hyderabad and Jawaharlal University (JNU), Delhi are the best examples for this.
On the one hand, UNO’s UNDP publishes Human Development Report with various indices of human and gender development but the models developed by countries which are in the highest position in Human Development have not been accepted by the World Bank. This is a serious contradiction. The World Bank will not agree to the best models of education of Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Sweden which are in the forefront of Human Development. Unless they are market- oriented and there by pro-corporate, the World Bank will have no trust on them. The pro-people models are termed by the World Bank as ‘Worst Models’. Further, it will criticize that their Higher Education sector is characterized by “Too much student welfare, Too much State control, Too much academic independence, Too much public involvement, Too little cost sharing by students, Too little market considerations”. Thus the World Bank will accept, popularize and pressurise the globe especially developing countries like India to take serious measures towards corporatization of Higher Education as well as Technical Education. The aim of building ‘Knowledge Societies’ itself is to strengthen the domination of corporate forces.
As a result of corporatization of Technical education as part of Higher Education, the poverty is increasing, no livelihood, and extreme inequalities on the rise. The majority people are deprived of education and health services. The Oxfam Report categorically states that it is necessary to emancipate the education and the health sectors to lessen the intensity of inequalities. Therefore, it is the greater responsibility of the progressive groups who have faith in people- centered approach to mobilise people in this direction.


Monday, August 29, 2016



By July 28, 2016 forty years have elapsed since the martyrdom of our beloved leader Comrade Tarimela Nagi Reddy. This is the solemn occasion to commemorate and memorise our great leader by recollecting for what he fought and strove through his entire life and died and to pay our homage to our beloved leader Com T.N, by rededicating ourselves to the revolutionary tasks in the light of the path shown by him and his teachings.

Com T.N is a great revolutionary-communist leader. He is an exemplary Marxist-Leninist intellectual. His sole and life-long objective was to resurrect the great glory of the Indian people and the Indian nation. Thus he was a patriot of the highest order. He has shone as a hero in the field of revolutionary politics of India. He was a great person who sacrificed every-thing in his life to the cause of Indian revolution. He is one of the best proponents of the theory of communist revolution in India.

He has studied in detail and depth about the pitiable conditions and their cause which have been looming in India even after a period of so-called independence of India in 1947 and analysed them with a true Marxist-Leninist perspective. He reached to the irrefutable conclusion that only transfer of power has occurred between the British colonialists and ruling-classes of India in 1947, but not independence to India in 1947.

He has concentrated his attention of his study particularly on the role of foreign capital in India; and its adverse effects on Indian economy. He had drawn the correct conclusion that inviting foreign capital to India is nothing but inviting imperialist exploitation, and total submission to imperialism.

He proved that even after 25 years of the so-called proclamation of independence, economic independence of India has become a mirage. He, with his astute analysis, has proved that India is still a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. Basing on these conclusions drawn by him, he considered the Indian National Liberation struggle has not yet concluded and he explained that it is the duty of Indian people to continue the struggle with steadfastness and vigour. Teaching that the Communist revolutionaries of India have to re-build the revolutionary Communist Party, with the discipline of the past, with selfless sacrifice, basing on strong foundations of proper theory and path and have to build a strong revolutionary organisation.

Throughout his life Com. T.N. has tirelessly strove to realise this objective with utmost dedication. Through his court-statement called ‘India Mortgaged’ he proved the inevitability and the imminent necessity of a new democratic revolution to occur in India. The formulations made by Com T.N. and the conclusions drawn by him are as relevant today, as when they were made 45 years back.

He had properly and fairly warned that the foreign capital and investments in India, instead of causing the development of Indian economy would drain the wealth of India in different forms, and that poverty, illiteracy and unemployment in India would increase in to unimaginable proportions.

He categorically and clearly warned that with the foreign capital and investments in India will fall in to total dependence on foreign powers (imperialists). Basing on the available data on the flow of foreign capital in to India by 1972 itself and on the details of its impacts affecting Indian economy, he properly concluded that ‘India was mortgaged’ to foreign capital.

In these 40 years after the demise of Com T.N, to facilitate the easy flow of foreign direct investment into India, the gates have been fully opened. To facilitate the free exploitation of India by foreign direct capital more opportunities, protections and exemptions are provided. To provide a dominant role to the foreign direct capital in Indian economy, the main lifeline of the people of India-the agricultural sector has been totally neglected and forcibly pushed into severe crises. The base for the sustenance of farmers (peasants)-the agricultural arable land-is being forcibly acquired by the government and is legally being donated to the big-capital, multinational giant corporates to pursue their real estate ambitions or corporate farming. For the protection of the interests of the FDI, the constitutional rights of the people of India are being rescinded (abolished) and withdrawn.

In a systematic process, now 100% of FDI entry is admitted into key and important sectors of our country. The legal restrictions and laws regulating the entry of FDI are totally removed. Into the fields of defence, pharmaceutical and drug manufacturing, civil aviation, single brand retail sector, e- commerce sector in food products the entry of 100% of FDI is permitted.

Now, inviting the FDI, protecting the interests of FDI and making it happy has become the sole objective, purpose and duty of the central and state governments of India. Previously only the central government is used to permit and decide the fields in to which the FDI is allowed and regulate it. But presently even the rulers of the state governments are touring foreign countries and inviting FDIs in to their states with a begging bowl in their hands. All this is happening under the pretext of federalism and in the name of supplementing domestic capital, technology and skills for accelerated economic growth.

But in reality neither the economic growth is occurring nor the technology nor are skills being transferred to India. The very experience of our country is proving that the FDI is controlling our economy and that the technology is not being imparted and made available to our reach.

Due to the FDI flow into India instead of the reduction of the problem of the balance of payments, it has been increasing day by day. Had there not been the home remittances of the poor workers in the Gulf countries, our country would have totally drowned in the problem of balance of payments.In proportion to the FDI inflows in to our country, the outflow of money in foreign exchange is increasing considerably.

According to the available official data, it is revealed that more amounts than the actual inflow of FDI are being repatriated and such an outflow is increasing abnormally. In 2015 the external debt to India stands to be 24% of the G.D.P. of India; and is increasing every year. According to the RBI report, in the period between 2009-10 and 2014-15, outflows due to repatriations, dividends and payments for technology constituted a major foreign exchange drain-nearly one-half of theequity inflows during that period.

The same reports tells that during the same period subsidiaries of foreign countries operating in India ran negative trade balances in almost all manufacturing sub-sectors. Together with remittances and other payments, foreign subsidiaries in more sectors regularly drew out surplus which looks quite large when compared with the capital that the foreign companies were bringing in.

Apart from the direct costs, the foreign investors are able to extract indirect benefits from our economy by using bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements (BIPA). The foreign investors have been challenging the tax liabilities imposed by the Indian government before private international panels; in the name of investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS).

The data provided by UN conference on trade and development (UNCTAD), reveals that the share of reinvested earnings constitute only a part of the FDI outflows, by the developing countries.

Recently Edinburgh-based Cairn energy had challenged the claim of the Indian government for a retrospective tax levy of Rs 29,047 crore, filing a claim to the international arbitration panel, demanding 18% higher than the amount demanded as retrospective tax levy. It claims $ 5.6 billion as a compensation from the government, if it is proceeding of tax demands.

Very recently the Deutsche Telekom, Devas has won an appeal against Antrix Corp, the commercial arm of India’s space energy ISRO, before the court of the permanent case of Arbitration (PCA) at Hague, under the arbitration rules of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the international court of arbitration asked Antrix to pay $ 672 million ( Rs 4,400 crore) to Devas for having India breached its bilateral treaty with Mauritius to accord equitable treatment to foreign investors.

These are the clear examples of how the very sovereignty of India is being undermined and dis honoured by FDI in India. Very recently C.A.G. found out that six telecom operators-RCom, Vodafone, Airtel, Aircel, Idea and Tata have underreported their revenues of their accounts leading to a loss of Rs 12,488.93 crores in tax to the exchequer from 2006 to 2010. The CAG has also revealed the true face of financial fraud perpetuated on the peoples’ savings in the form NPAs of the banks, by the big-capital. As on March 31, 2015 the NPAs amounted to Rs 3 lakh crores,while over 40% (1.21 lakh crore) is due to 30 corporates. Ten state-run banks suffered losses of over Rs. 15,000 crores in the fourth quarter of 2015-16 financial year due to the NPAs gobbled by the corporates.

The CAG stated that ‘a large part of the advances (NPAs) may have been transferred abroad and may never be recovered. The award of London Court of international arbitration against breach of the joint venture agreement between Tata sons and Docomo, to pay $ 1.17 billion to Docomo, to exercise its exist option of the joint venture agreement again reveals how the FDI trade agreements favour the foreign investors with one sided and uneven terms to the disadvantage of Indian partners.
Today the fresh corporate debt in India is supposed to be growing at 50% of the nominal GDP growth.

Thus the FDI is not only playing havoc with Indian economy but is also making India totally dependent on it. The rulers, ruling-classes and particularly the comprador bourgeoisie are wholly responsible to this degraded condition of the dependency of our country on foreign investments.

Now it will not be an exaggeration if we call “INDIA- THE TOTALLY DEPENDENT COUNTRY” in the light of the outlook and perspective shown by Com. T.N. in his outstanding conclusions that ‘India was Mortgaged’.

On one hand the outflow and drain of great wealth from India and on the other hand the ever increasing poverty, inequality, unemployment and ill health into boundless proportions is the pitiable scene of India which has been overwhelmingly drowned by FDIs.

As Comrade T.N. had questioned with a just and patriotic anger “can any citizen with a grain of patriotism in him can remain silent without revolving against such a degrading state of affairs to resurrect the great glory of the Indian people and the Indian nation?”

That is why let us march forward in the path shown by our beloved leader Com T.N., to move the people to fight against these shameful conditions duly exposing the machinations and illusions and tactics propagated and practiced by the rulers and ruling-classes! Let us pledge to rededicate to our revolutionary task of continuing a new democratic revolution to success, overthrowing the system of the imperialist and feudal forces and their henchmen comprador bourgeoisie and establish a people’s new democratic system! This alone will be the fitting homage to our departed beloved.

Visitors">free counters