CPI-M debacle - General Election 2009

General Election 2009:

Analysis of CPI-M debacle in particular and Left Parties poor showing in general

Tendency of blaming Com. Prakash Karat alone, for withdrawing support on account of the N - deal is opportunistic – it mostly comes from those who at one point of time suffered from the illusion of joining the Central Govt. as an instrument to make a difference to the influence and reach of Leftist/ Communist movement at an all – India level;

This tendency comes perhaps from the outlook that aims and objectives of the Communist movement can be served better by staying close to bourgeois state power instead of organising the toiling masses on their fundamental class issues/ interests;

Whereas Com. Karat might have made the most significant contribution in formulating the tactical line of CPI-M in the post – 2004 period; it was ultimately a collectively adopted line, often receiving almost doctrinaire/ inflexible advocacy from other Left Parties;

CPI-M needed to demarcate itself as an upholder of the voices and interests of the toiling masses and could not have gone to the polls at the tail – end of Congress;

A dissociation from Congress and UPA was always on the cards, in view of the obvious fundamental difference in world view between Congress and CPI-M; it would have been better and more credible had the severing taken place even earlier, rather than few months before the elections – even if it precipitated a mid – term election;

Though its opposition to the N – deal was eminently valiant and strategically/ ideologically justified, CPI-M and perhaps Com. Karat committed a tactical mistake in not opting for a voting resolution in Parliament against the N – deal as suggested/ dared by SP, INLD etc. immediately after publication of the 123 Agreement;

It would have put a big hurdle before the Manmohonomic pursuit of the N-deal and could have saved CPI-M from the saleability of severing ties with UPA on a rather abstruse issue. Of course, as time passed by, nobody was left in any doubt of the fundamental and persevering opposition of CPI-M to the deal its intention of advancing to a strategic tie up with USA by jettisoning Non-Alignment. The doubting Thomases also fell silent;

The silver lining in the present gloom is that CPI-M would not have shoulder the additional burden of propping up a secular Central Govt. at times diverting its energy away from leadership of the working class movement. It may concentrate now more on the class issues of the toiling masses;

Fighting for a principle and firmness on a standpoint will often requires paying a price; it requires hard work, commitment and will to fight to prove a point

It is not always necessary for a tactical line to register immediate success in order to be regarded as correct. Setbacks and reverses may always have to be suffered before the line actually is vindicated;

Despite the disintegration of UPA, a strong Congress undercurrent based on the desire to have a stable secular Govt. bolstered Congress chances in Tamil Nadu, Andhra, Maharashtra and most states of the Hindi Belt;

As stated by Com. Yechury, the Third Front was electoral cut and paste job without any programmatic cohesion. So, it did not carry any conviction at the all – India level;

Factors in Bengal:

Affairs of Singur and Nandigram need not be clubbed together. At Singur, the local party organisation ultimately found its feet and was steering it to be a successful showcase story. That was one of the reasons, why Mamata was so desperate to sabotage it;

Unlike Keshpur of 2000-02, Nandigram was a far more complex case. Both the local party and local/ State Administration failed to grasp the ground realities. The tactics of islanding locality at Nandigram was not employed at Keshpur by Md. Rafiq;

Following the Chief Minister’s announcement of not acquiring land at Nandigram and the resulting apparent calm led the WB Home Secretary and IG police to enter Nandigram to re-establish administration in the isolated zone, while overlooking the fact that CPI-M supporters were still being forced to leave at Khejuri relief camps, stacking of weapons were going on for forcing a fight if police tried to enter, possibility of use of sniper fire and human shield by the Mamata led anti – communist rainbow coalition killers

The much condemned police killing of Nandigram villagers was therefore avoidable – though it was later unearthed that some of them were killed from the back by Mamata’s Maoists;

The second and successful freeing of Nandigram – in the largely peaceful way of Keshpur fight back method by the evicted CPI-M supporting villagers themselves should have been applied on the very first occasion itself after making adequate preparation for a fight back;

Since fear of Nandigram many villagers were sought to be used to dislodge CPI-M activists of peasant movements and roll back land reforms & Panchayeti Raj achievements at Nandigram, it was wrong to allow local leaders of Mamata’s conspiring coalition to return and resume their murderous and disruptive activities after the peaceful freeing of Nandigram on the second occasion;

Mamata should not have been allowed to lay siege on NANO factory and Durgapur Expressway – this portrayed a helpless, soft and passive bystander image of the State Govt.;

Though during the drive – out NANO attempts, sections of even the Trinamul supporting urban middle class became vocal against her, later on it again fell prey to the Big Business Press orchestrated campaign of “end the 30 year old Left – rule for a change of palate and variety” campaign;

It became almost customary for smaller constituents of LF to criticise CPI-M, WB industrialisation programme and the State Govt. (even by ministers like Kshiti Goswami) openly and CPI-M not responding in public in the interest of the so – called Left unity;

It was becoming the order of the day that parties like FB, RSP as also CPI at times would only share the spoils but spare themselves the trials and tests. They often joined the detractors of the Communist movement to berate CPI-M on any controversial issue. Their attitude was to pander to the petty bourgeois sentiment;

The tactics of berating CPI-M has become one way of blocking every attempt of job creation and improvement of the living conditions of rural toiling masses on one hand and putting the blame on CPI-M for perpetuating unemployment on the other;

1. 
   The fact that Land Reforms, Panchayeti Raj band of policies and resulting upliftment of huge sections of the peasantry above the poverty line, reduced child mortality on the one hand and caused population pressure in the villages on the other necessitating much more non – farm jobs and rapid industrialisation, received less than adequate analytical attention. Dissociation of the disguised unemployed from Left-led peasant movements must have been noticed by the Mamata led anti – communist forces. Hence, the vehement opposition to Left led industrialisation.

God, Reality and Scientific Theory as seen by Prof. Hawking

“Prof. Stephen Hawking’s Philosophical/ epistemological position”

(from “Black holes & baby universes”: Ch.-6, pages – 35 to 41, Originally given as a talk to a Caius College audience in May 1992)

{This is provisional posting - I intend to amalgamate it later on with more of similar material – formulations numberwise and related opinions of Prof. Stephen Hawking are my extractions, re – arrangements and editings without modifying any word but inserting one or two of mine at places within brackets}

Philosophical/ epistemological position #0

“This article is not about whether I believe in God - I will discuss my approach to how one can understand the universe: what is the status and meaning of a Grand Unified Theory, a theory of everything”

Stephen Hawking now berates Philosophers of science

“The people who ought to study and argue such questions, the philosophers, have not had enough mathematical background to keep up with modern developments in theoretical physics”.

“There is a subspecies called, Philosophers of science who ought to be better equipped. But many of them are failed physicists who found it too hard to invent new theories and so took to writing about the philosophy of physics instead. They are still arguing about the scientific theories of the early years of this century, like relativity and quantum mechanics. They are not in touch with the present frontier of physics”.

“I have been variously called nominalist, an instumentalist, a positivist, a realist and several other -ists. The technique seeems to be refutation by denigration”.

Logical self-consistency vs. theory

Philosophical/ epistemological position #1

“I am sure that Einstein, Heisenberg and Dirac didn’t worry about whether they were realists or instrumentalists, they were simply concernend that existing theories didn’t fit together. In theoretical physics, the search for logical self-consistency has always been more important in making advances than experimental results. Otherwise elegant and beautiful theories have been rejected because they don’t agree with observation but I don’t know of any major theory that has been advanced just on the basis of experiment.”

“The theory always came first from the desire to have an elegant and consistent mathematical model. The theory then makes predictions, which can then be tested by observation. If the observations agree with the predictions, that doesn’t prove the theory; but the theory survives to make further predicions, which again are tested against observation”.

About how people defend their challenged theory

“….by questioning the accuracy of the observastions. If that fails, they try to modify the theory in an ad hoc manner. Eventually the theory becomes a creaking and ugly edifice. Then someone suggests a new theory, in which all the awakward observations are explained in an elegant and natural manner.

Example: "Michelson Morley experiment, 1887 >> Showed that the speed of light was always the same, no matter how the source or the observer was moving"

Surely someone moving towards the light ought to measure it travelling at a higher speed than someone moving in the same direction as the light; yet the experiment showed thast both observers would measure exactly the same speed

Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzerald tried to accommodate this observation within accepted ideas of space and time ……(with) ad-hoc postulates… “Objects got shorter when they moved at high sepeds”.

Then a new theory

1905: Einstein suggested…. “..time was not regarded as completely separate and on its own. Instead it was combined with space in a four-dimensional object called space-time”.

“Einstein was driven to this idea not so much by the experimental results as by the desire to make two parts of the theory fit together in a consistent whole …. (i) laws that govern the electric and magnetic fields and (ii) laws that govern the motion of bodies.

“…. new theory of relativity ….. completely revolutionized our notions of space and time”

Philosophical/ epistemological position #2.1

“This example illustrates well the difficulty of being a realist in the philosophy of science, for what we regard as relity is conditoned by the theory to which we subscribe. I am certain Lorentz and Fitzgerald regarded themselves a realists, interpreting the experiment on the speed of light in terms of Newtonian ideas of absolute space and absolute time. These notions of space and time seemed to coresponed to common sense and reality”.

Philosophical/ epistemological position #2.2

If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy?

Philosophical/ epistemological position #2.3

“I am realist in the sense that I think there is universe out there waiting to be investigated and understood. I regard the solipsist position that rverything is the creation of our imaginations as a waste of time …. But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe withour a theory. I therefore take the view, which has been described as simple – minded and naïve that a theory of physics is just a mathematical model that we use to describe the results of observations. A theory is a good theory,… if it describes a wide class of observations and if it predicts the results of new observations. Beyond that, it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory.

Philosophers of science vs. Prof. Hawking again

“This (i.e. #2.3) view of scientific theories makes me an instrumentalist or a Positivist”

“The person who called me a positivist went on to add that everyone knew that positivism was out of date – another case of refutation by denigration”

“It may indeed be out out of date in that it was yesterday’s intellectual fad, but the positivist position I have outlined seems the only possible one for some one who is seeking new laws, and new ways, to describe the universe. It is no good appealing to reality because we don’t have a model independent concept of reality".

“The unspoken belief in a model independent reality is the underlying reason for the difficulties philosophers of science have with quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle”.

“There is a famous thought experiment called Schrodinger’s cat: A cat is placed in as sealed box. There is a gun pointing at it, and it will go off if a redioactive nucleus decays. The probability of this happening is 50 per cent. ……… If one opens the box, one will find thre cat either dead or alive. But before the box is opened, the quantum state of the cat will be a mixture of the dead cat state with a state in which the cat is alive. This some philosophers of science find very hard to accept, the cat can’t be falf shot and half not-shot, they claim, any more than one can be half pregnant. Their difficulty arises because they are implicitly using a classical concept of reality in which an object has a definite single history. … Quantum mechanics … has a different view of reality.”

“An object has not just a single history but all possible histories. In most cases, the probabiltiy of having a particular history will cancel out with the probabillity of having a very slightly different history; but in certain cases, the probabilities of neighbouring histories reinforce each other. It is one of these reinforced histories that we observe as the history of the object”

“... Schrodinger’s cat, … two histories that are reinforced… cat is shot … it remains alive … in quantum theory both possibilities can exist together. Some philosophers … implicitly assume that the cat can have only one history”.

“Nature of time is another example … (where) our theories of physics determine our concept of reality. It used to be consisdered obvious that time flowed on for ever, .. theory of relativity combined time with space and said that both could be warped or distorted, by the matter and energy in the universe”.

“So our perception of the nature of time changed from being independent of the universe to being shaped by it. It then became conceivable that time might simply not be defined before a certain point; as one goes back in time, one might come to an insurmountable barrier, a singularity, beyond which one could not go. If that were the case, it wouldn’t make ssense to ask who, or what, caused or created the big bang. To talk about causation or creation implicitly assumes there was a time befor the big bang singularity”.

“Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago. But the philosophers have not yet caught up with the idea. They are still worrying about the founations of quantum mechanics that were laid down sixty-five years ago. They don’t realize that the frontier of physics has moved on”.

“Even worse is the mathematical concept of imaginary time, in which Jim Hartle and I suggested the universe may not have any beginning or end ….. attacked by a philosopher of science for talking about imaginary time. He said: How can a mathematical trick like imaginary time have anything to do with the real universe? … this Philosopher was confusing the technical mathematical terms real and imaginary nembers with the way that real and imaginary are used in everyday language. This .. illustrates my points how can we know what is real, independent of a theory or model with which to interpret it?

“ … examples from relativity and quantum mechnics to show the problems one faces when one tries to make sense of the universe.

Philosophical/ epistemological position #2.4

“What I hope I have demonstrated is that some sort of positivist approach, in which one regards a theory as model is the only way to understand the universe”

“I am hopeful that we will find a consistent model that describes everything in the universe. If we do that it will be a real triumph for the human race”.

(Ack.: Ms. Dimple Tyagi, in typing out, editing, arranging and formatting, errors are however, my responsibility)

My post General Election, 2009 exchanges with a brotherly acquaintance

16.05.2009 – 17.05.2009:

His SMS:
“After a long time the most promising result from West Bengal and Bihar; people have gone for change to see development rather than some equation for staying in power; people become really frustrated to see red signal for all development”.

My response was:
“Who gave red signal to NANO in Singur ? LF or Mamata + Cong ! People of WB would soon learn paying in blood that lumpens get you degeneration not development”.

Now in the context of your responding SMS below I would add further that you simply changed track when confronted with reality; even a casual reading of your 1st SMS would indicate that you wrote of WB and Bihar only, not of all – India politics; anyway, in Bihar the change continues from its last Assembly election, the much laughed-after Biharis clearly showing that they understand what and who is better for their state to develop;

on the contrary the much vaunted Bengali ‘intelligentsia’, urban middle class, some unemployed youth and some section of the middle and small peasantry (who at one point of time benefitted from the land reform – panchayeti raj movement and thus can now live life above the poverty line) has evidently chosen a downward direction; in fact sometime back just after the “drive-out-NANO” phase I rhymed and SMSd in Bengali to many of my acquaintances and friends :

NANO tarhiye khwaab dekhi; WRITERS ekbaar haate paai; tirish bachhar pete khide; elo-melo kore loote-poote khaai

I am sure those who have voted for Trinamul would soon realise what they have done and the whole of West Bengal would have to pay through its nose for this choice; the sordid saga of killing CPI-M cadres for the past few months having already intensified; I would again suggest a reference to my formulations at my March 2009 blog "No industry in Bengal".

Now his SMS in response:
I was talking about national politics; they have never allowed the Govt. to settle; they have always given red signal to market and economic friendly policies; instead criticising they should come with good global innovative policies like China; they are so open in economic policies though they are communist

My response now:
So far as all-India politics is concerned, a Communist Party worth its salt will always oppose anti – people, pro – big business economic reforms, allowing imperialist control of strategic sectors of economy, disinvesting and selling of PSU shares for a pittance, dismantling indigenous scientific & technological capacity building e.g. Thorium FBRs, abandoning of independent foreign policy etc. whether supporting or opposing the Govt. Strident opposition of CPI-M to Manmohanomics/ imperialist liberalisation/ globalisation ensured that your livelihoods are far less affected by the present global capitalist crisis as against in USA

As for China, success of all its economic reform policies is ensured by the (i) Peoples’ Democratic Dictatorship and the (ii) leading role of the Chinese Communist Party in the society. Reading of CCP documents show how acute is its awareness that the touchstone is ultimately how reforms ultimately serve the (iii) interests of its toiling masses. If you want CPI-M to follow Chinese economic line, learn first to bear with its whole of efforts to wage struggles to achieve (i) & (ii) to ensure (iii) and do not advise to be selective for so called economic reform policies(*).

Now, to counter the recession, it is pumping huge money into economy to develop domestic market/ purchasing power, rather than the headlong pursuit of handing over control of its economy to the global imperialist capital. As for its technological capabilities and confidence, its hardware are powering the so-called IT giant named India, which is rather dismantling indigenous research in Thorium FBRs and oxigenising moribund US N-technology firms using Indian public funds.

(*)As for the CPI-M practising what you called good global innovative policies like China, Trinamul supported Maoists would landmine Jindal Steel in Purulia, sabotage Katoa Thermal power plant, block proposals of Barasat – Kukrahati road project in PPP mode and drown the chemical hub in Nayachar, while Congress and Big-Business media cheers this nefarious game from Delhi; after all Left Front can not be allowed corner the credit for reindustrialisation of West Bengal now, following successful land reforms, which kept them out of power for 30 long years. Devastate West Bengal to devastate CPI-M.

I would however strongly agree with your assessment of acquiescing to some equation for staying in power (see his 1st SMS). WB Govt. should have firmly handled all saboteurs of its reindustrialisation programme – Singur, Nandigram and the rest of W. Bengal, given the mandate of the 2006 assembly election. Even if it meant some additional bloodshed – Mamata looking for more dead bodies so hopefully. After all, if your opposition believes in being political scoundrels, deal with them accordingly. This sends strong signals that you mean business. Being gentleman to a gang of hoodlums (as Buddhababu did), runs the risk of being seen as weak. Thus you lose a battle without really fighting it.