Monday, August 7, 2017

Janamuktikami August 2017 Issue Available

August 2017 issue of Janamuktikami is now available.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Make the Programme of 50th Anniversary of Naxalbari Peasant Uprising a Grand Success

March Forward in the Agrarian Revolutionary Path of Telengana and Naxalbari

Dear Comrades and Friends,
     This year is the 50th anniversary of Naxalbari peasant uprising. This uprising of 1967 was the resurgence of Telengana movement. Many of us are aware that at the time of Telengana movement Comrades Stalin and Mao unitedly launched ideological struggle to free the Communist parties of different countries from the influence of Trotskyite and Titoite line. Let’s look into the international and national political situation of this period.
     In 1948, Tito was expelled from Cominform. In 1949 great Chinese Revolution achieved victory. In 1950 a historic editorial was published in the organ of Cominform. In the same year, Ranadive, the then general secretary of CPI, was forced to make self-criticism. The CPI adopted a Party programme through an all India conference. Therefore, the editorial of Cominform, the self-critical report of Ranadive and the Party programme of 1951 marked  the fundamental line of Indian Revolution. But the CPI cancelled the programme of 1951 after the death of Com. Stalin in 1953 and adhered in the revisionist line.  On the other side, the two-line struggle continued within the Party.  Then the Khrushchevite revisionism appeared in the stage. It intensified the two-line struggle in the CPI.  At that time the great Naxalbari peasant upsurge came into being. In China, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution broke out  against the Titoite-Khrushchevite revisionism. These incidents put forward the teachings of Telengana before the Naxalbari peasant struggle. Therefore, Telengana and Naxalbari, Tito and Khrushchev, Stalin and Mao cannot be separated.
    The Naxalbari peasant upsurge completes fifty years in 2017. After 50 years, is the path of Naxalbari relevant today? Several naxalite groups have already abandoned the agrarian revolutionary politics of Naxalbari. Like the CPI and CPI(M),  they are by now practising parliamentary politics arguing that the capitalist development in Indian agriculture currently plays a decisive role, the Indian big bourgeoisies are independent and therefore the stage of Indian revolution is socialist. Which social revolution has changed the state character of India? Which revolution has uprooted feudalism and imperialism from the Indian soil? They, however, keep silence in these questions. Some of them express faith on agrarian revolution in words, although they participate in parliamentary electioneering in the name of tactics. Thus they have chosen the road to escape from revolutionary arena. Some are strengthening the hand of imperialism by spreading confusions over Naxalbari politics.  There is no doubt that the set back in the revolutionary struggle was due to ultra-left deviation after Naxalbari movement. But the so-called Naxalites have made the leadership solely accountable for ultra-left deviation to justify their current right opportunist practice and therefore undermine the cause of Indian Revolution.  
    
     Even after 50 years, the Naxalbari peasant uprising is still relevant.  Not only the current objective condition of Indian society is the same as it was at the time of Naxalbari uprising, but the imperialist plunder and semi-feudal exploitation have now become intensified as well. It is noteworthy that historically imperialism cannot uproot feudalism which is the social base of imperialist plunder.  Rather, for its own interest it strengthens feudal system through cosmetic and partial reform.   Even with distorted capitalist development, semi-feudalism exists and will exist to play the dominant role in agriculture. With the support of imperialism, semi-feudal exploitation through usury and merchant capital has been strengthened. In India peasants are debt-bound and 57-77% of agricultural debt owes to usurer and non-bank lending agencies. According to the report of Mahalanabis Committee six crore thirty lakh acre of land is available to distribute among landless peasants, given the land ceiling is 20 acre per family. Till date less than 2 % of this land has been distributed.
        Multinational corporations have extensively penetrated the Indian agricultural market of fertilizers, seed, pesticides etc. through globalization and various WTO agreements. Thus imperialist capital along with usurer and merchant capital appropriate most of the surplus made by the small, medium and big peasants. This surplus therefore remains outside the arena of agricultural development, which, in turn, contributes to the hindrance in capitalist reproduction in agriculture and strengthens semi-feudal exploitation.
      Currently the central government of India as well as different state governments propose agricultural reforms which will actually help the land sharks to grab thousands of acres of land from the peasants.  
        Therefore, the basic politics of Naxalbari is correct and relevant even today. Let’s remember what Com. Stalin and Com. Mao said emphasizing the importance of agrarian revolution: “It would be foolish to think that feudalism and imperialism can be overthrown in China by armed strength alone. Without an agrarian revolution and without active support of the Wuhan troops by the vast masses of peasants and workers, such forces cannot be overthrown” (J V Stalin). “Establishment of Red Army, Guerrila  Units and Red Areas is the highest form and inevitable consequence of peasant struggle under the leadership of the working class in semi-colonial China” (Mao Tse-tung).
             In many regions of India, agrarian revolutionary struggle of Naxalbari is still continuing combating many hurdles, although more challenges are yet to be overcome. The fiftieth anniversary of Naxalbari peasant uprising does, therefore,  demand  united struggle of workers, peasants, students, youth, writers, artists, intellectuals, i.e., the whole democratic and patriotic force to accomplish victory of the New Democratic Revolution by  grasping the lessons from success and failure, positive and negative aspects of the heroic struggle of great Indian people. Naxalbari ekhee rastha.
                                                                             With struggling greetings,
                                                                            JANAMUKTIKAMI
                                                                                                                                                            

Fifty Years of Naxalbari Peasant Uprising
Seminar
29 May 2017
4-00 pm to 8-00 pm
Chandrasekhar Das Auditorium (Bharatsabha Hall), Kolkata 

* Published by Chittaranjan Das, Editor, Janamuktikami on March 1, 2017 from Kolkata    

Sunday, January 29, 2017

A Well-Kept Open Secret: Washington Is Behind India’s Brutal Demonetization Project

In early November, without warning, the Indian government declared the two largest denomination bills invalid, abolishing over 80 percent of circulating cash by value. Amidst all the commotion and outrage this caused, nobody seems to have taken note of the decisive role that Washington played in this. That is surprising, as Washington’s role has been disguised only very superficially.
US-President Barack Obama has declared the strategic partnership with India a priority of his foreign policy. China needs to be reined in. In the context of this partnership, the US government’s development agency USAID has negotiated cooperation agreements with the Indian ministry of financeOne of these has the declared goal to push back the use of cash in favor of digital payments in India and globally.
On November 8, Indian prime minster Narendra Modi announced that the two largest denominations of banknotes could not be used for payments any more with almost immediate effect. Owners could only recoup their value by putting them into a bank account before the short grace period expired. The amount of cash that banks were allowed to pay out to individual customers was severely restricted. Almost half of Indians have no bank account and many do not even have a bank nearby. The economy is largely cash based. Thus, a severe shortage of cash ensued. Those who suffered the most were the poorest and most vulnerable. They had additional difficulty earning their meager living in the informal sector or paying for essential goods and services like food, medicine or hospitals. Chaos and fraud reigned well into December.
Four weeks earlier
Not even four weeks before this assault on Indians, USAID had announced the establishment of „Catalyst: Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership“, with the goal of effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India. The press statement of October 14 says that Catalyst “marks the next phase of partnership between USAID and Ministry of Finance to facilitate universal financial inclusion”. The statement does not show up in the list of press statements on the website of USAID (anymore?). Not even filtering statements with the word “India” would bring it up. To find it, you seem to have to know it exists, or stumble upon it in a web search. Indeed, this and other statements, which seemed rather boring before, have become a lot more interesting and revealing after November 8.
Reading the statements with hindsight it becomes obvious, that Catalyst and the partnership of USAID and the Indian Ministry of Finance, from which Catalyst originated, are little more than fronts which were used to be able to prepare the assault on all Indians using cash without arousing undue suspicion. Even the name Catalyst sounds a lot more ominous, once you know what happened on November 9.
Catalyst’s Director of Project Incubation is Alok Gupta, who used to be Chief Operating Officer of the World Resources Institute in Washington, which has USAID as one of its main sponsors. He was also an original member of the team that developed Aadhaar, the Big-Brother-like biometric identification system.
According to a report of the Indian Economic Times, USAID has committed to finance Catalyst for three years. Amounts are kept secret.
Badal Malick was Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, before he was appointed as CEO of Catalyst. He commented:
 Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model. (…) While there has been (…) a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.
Ten months earlier
The multiple coordination problem and the cash-ecosystem-issue that Malick mentions had been analysed in a report that USAID commissioned in 2015 and presented in January 2016, in the context of the anti-cash partnership with the Indian Ministry of Finance. The press release on this presentation is also not in USAID’s list of press statements (anymore?). The title of the study was “Beyond Cash”.
“Merchants, like consumers, are trapped in cash ecosystems, which inhibits their interest” in digital payment it said in the report. Since few traders accept digital payments, few consumers have an interest in it, and since few consumers use digital payments, few traders have an interest in it. Given that banks and payment providers charge fees for equipment to use or even just try out digital payment, a strong external impulse is needed to achieve a level of card penetration that would create mutual interest of both sides in digital payment options.
It turned out in November that the declared “holistic ecosystem approach” to create this impulse consisted in destroying the cash-ecosystem for a limited time and to slowly dry it up later, by limiting the availability of cash from banks for individual customers. Since the assault had to be a surprise to achieve its full catalyst-results, the published Beyond-Cash-Study and the protagonists of Catalyst could not openly describe their plans. They used a clever trick to disguise them and still be able to openly do the necessary preparations, even including expert hearings. They consistently talked of a regional field experiment that they were ostensibly planning.
“The goal is to take one city and increase the digital payments 10x in six to 12 months,” said Malick less than four weeks before most cash was abolished in the whole of India. To not be limited in their preparation on one city alone, the Beyond-Cash-report and Catalyst kept talking about a range of regions they were examining, ostensibly in order to later decide which was the best city or region for the field experiment. Only in November did it became clear that the whole of India should be the guinea-pig-region for a global drive to end the reliance on cash. Reading a statement of Ambassador Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India, with hindsight, it becomes clear that he stealthily announced that, when he said four weeks earlier:
India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.
Veterans of the war on cash in action
Who are the institutions behind this decisive attack on cash? Upon the presentation of the Beyond-Cash-report, USAID declared: “Over 35 key Indian, American and international organizations have partnered with the Ministry of Finance and USAID on this initiative.” On the website catalyst.org one can see that they are mostly IT- and payment service providers who want to make money from digital payments or from the associated data generation on users. Many are veterans of,what a high-ranking official of Deutsche Bundesbank called the “war of interested financial institutions on cash” (in German). They include the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation.
The Better Than Cash Alliance
The Better Than Cash Alliance, which includes USAID as a member, is mentioned first for a reason. It was founded in 2012 to push back cash on a global scale. The secretariat is housed at the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDP) in New York, which might have its reason in the fact that this rather poor small UN-organization was glad to have the Gates-Foundation in one of the two preceding years and the Master-Card-Foundation in the other as its most generous donors.
The members of the Alliance are large US-Institutions which would benefit most from pushing back cash, i.e. credit card companies Mastercard and Visa, and also some US-institutions whose names come up a lot in books on the history of the United States intelligence services, namely Ford Foundation and USAID. A prominent member is also the Gates-Foundation. Omidyar Network of eBay-founder Pierre Omidyar and Citi are important contributors. Almost all of these are individually also partners in the current USAID-India-Initiative to end the reliance on cash in India and beyond. The initiative and the Catalyst-program seem little more than an extended Better Than Cash Alliance, augmented by Indian and Asian organizations with a strong business interest in a much decreased use of cash.
Reserve Bank of India’s IMF-Chicago Boy
The partnership to prepare the temporary banning of most cash in India coincides roughly with the tenure of Raghuram Rajan at the helm of Reserve Bank of India from September 2013 to September 2016. Rajan (53) had been, and is now again, economics professor at the University of Chicago. From 2003 to 2006 he had been Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington. (This is a cv-item he shares with another important warrior against cash, Ken Rogoff.) He is a member of the Group of Thirty, a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken. It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriers like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others.
Raghuram Rajan has ample reason to expect to climb further to the highest rungs in international finance and thus had good reason to play Washington’s game well. He already was a President of the American Finance Association and inaugural recipient of its Fisher-Black-Prize in financial research. He won the handsomely endowed prizes of Infosys for economic research and of Deutsche Bank for financial economics as well as the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Prize for best economics book. He was declared Indian of the year by NASSCOM and Central Banker of the year by Euromoney and by The Banker. He is considered a possible successor of Christine Lagard at the helm of the IMF, but can certainly also expect to be considered for other top jobs in international finance.
As a Central Bank Governor, Rajan was liked and well respected by the financial sector, but very much disliked by company people from the real (producing) sector, despite his penchant for deregulation and economic reform. The main reason was the restrictive monetary policy he introduced and staunchly defended. After he was viciously criticized from the ranks of the governing party, he declared in June that he would not seek a second term in September. Later he told the New York Times that he had wanted to stay on, but not for a whole term, and that premier Modi would not have that. A former commerce and law Minister, Mr. Swamy, said on the occasion of Rajan’s  departure that it would make Indian industrialists happy:
I certainly wanted him out, and I made it clear to the prime minister, as clear as possible. (…) His audience was essentially Western, and his audience in India was transplanted westernized society. People used to come in delegations to my house to urge me to do something about it.
A disaster that had to happen
If Rajan was involved in the preparation of this assault to declare most of Indians’ banknotes illegal – and there should be little doubt about that, given his personal and institutional links and the importance of Reserve Bank of India in the provision of cash – he had ample reason to stay in the background. After all, it cannot have surprised anyone closely involved in the matter, that this would result in chaos and extreme hardship, especially for the majority of poor and rural Indians, who were flagged as the supposed beneficiaries of the badly misnamed “financial-inclusion”-drive. USAID and partners had analysed the situation extensively and found in the Beyond-Cash-report that 97% of transactions were done in cash and that only 55% of Indians had a bank account. They also found that even of these bank accounts, “only 29% have been used in the last three months“.
All this was well known and made it a certainty that suddenly abolishing most cash would cause severe and even existential problems to many small traders and producers and to many people in remote regions without banks. When it did, it became obvious, how false the promise of financial inclusion by digitalization of payments and pushing back cash has always been. There simply is no other means of payment that can compete with cash in allowing everybody with such low hurdles to participate in the market economy.
However, for Visa, Mastercard and the other payment service providers, who were not affected by these existential problems of the huddled masses, the assault on cash will most likely turn out a big success, “scaling up” digital payments in the “trial region”. After this chaos and with all the losses that they had to suffer, all business people who can afford it, are likely to make sure they can accept digital payments in the future. And consumers, who are restricted in the amount of cash they can get from banks now, will use opportunities to pay with cards, much to the benefit of Visa, Mastercard and the other members of the extended Better Than Cash Alliance.
Why Washington is waging a global war on cash
The business interests of the US-companies that dominate the gobal IT business and payment systems are an important reason for the zeal of the US-government in its push to reduce cash use worldwide, but it is not the only one and might not be the most important one. Another motive is surveillance power that goes with increased use of digital payment. US-intelligence organizations and IT-companies together can survey all international payments done through banks and can monitor most of the general stream of digital data. Financial data tends to be the most important and valuable.
Even more importantly, the status of the dollar as the worlds currency of reference and the dominance of US companies in international finance provide the US government with tremendous power over all participants in the formal non-cash financial system. It can make everybody conform to American law rather than to their local or international rules. German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has recently run a chilling story describing how that works (German). Employees of a Geran factoring firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more. A major German bank was forced to fire several employees upon US request, who had not done anything improper or unlawful.
There are many more such examples. Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the US government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the US or in dollars basically amounts to shutting them down. Just think about Deutsche Bank, which had to negotiate with the US treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fne of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Janamuktikami December 2016 Issue Available

December 2016 issue of Janamuktikami is now available.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Leninism and Soviet Socialism

Leninism and Soviet Socialism,  a book by Biswajit Basu has dealt many debates that prevail in the communist revolutionary camp. Download Leninism and Soviet Socialism by Biswajit Basu.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Hundred Years After

Gargi Sengupta

I

In 1917, two revolutions swept through Russia, ending centuries of imperial rule and setting in motion political and social changes that would lead to the formation of the Soviet Union. In March, growing civil unrest, coupled with chronic food shortages, erupted into an open revolt, forcing the abdication of Nicholas II, the last Russian Czar. Just months later, the newly installed provisional government was itself overthrown by the more radical revolutionary party in the former Soviet Union and another revolution broke up rapidly. The revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of Communism in the 20th century. It was less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end.
The first Russian revolution of 1905 was the expression of a gigantic conflict between the growing forces of production on the one hand and reactionary, industrial and political conditions in Russia on the other. A rapidly growing capitalism demanded the freedom of the inner market, the failure of the Russian-Japanese War having made the extension of foreign markets impossible. But the home market was equally unresponsive. The predominant group among the Russian people was its peasantry, whose demands and buying power represented the basis for all further capitalistic development. They were equal, it is true, but equal in misery.
The Russian revolution of 1905 was said to be a major factor behind the revolution of 1917. The events of Bloody Sunday triggered a wave of protests. Amidst this chaos, a council of workers was convened in St. Petersburg and the beginning of a Communist political protest had begun. World War I prompted a Russian outcry directed at Tsar Nicholas II. It was another major factor that contributed to the retaliation of the Russian communists against their royal opponents. After the entry of the Ottoman Empire on the side of the central powers in October 1914, Russia was deprived of a major trade route through the Ottoman Empire. This was followed by a minor economic crisis, in which Russia became incapable of providing munitions to its army in the years leading to 1917. 
However, the problems were merely administrative and not industrial as Germany was producing a considerable arsenal of munitions, while constantly fighting on two major battlefronts. The war developed awareness in the city, owing to a lack of food because of the disruption in agricultural activity. The cities were almost always short of food. At the same time, rising prices led to demands for higher wages in factories and in January and February, 1916 revolutionary propaganda, aided by German funds, led to widespread strikes. These agitations became more frequent from the middle of 1915. Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in the food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich and wondering when and how this would all come to an end. 
All these factors had by 1916 given rise to a sharp loss of confidence in the regime. Nicholas was blamed for the crises and what little support he had left began to crumble. As discontent grew, the State Dumas issued a warning to Nicholas in November 1916. It stated that a terrible disaster would inevitably grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. In typical fashion, however, Nicholas ignored the warnings and Russia's Tsarist regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917. In the beginning of February, Petrograd workers organised demonstrations and went on strike. On 16 March, a provisional government was announced. The representatives of the provisional government agreed to "take into account the opinions of the Soviet of Worker's Deputies" though they were also determined to prevent " interference in the actions of the government", which would create "an unacceptable situation of dual power". 
On 18 June, the provisional government launched an attack against Germany, an offensive that failed miserably. The soldiers refused to follow the orders of the government. The soldiers and sailors, along with Petrograd workers, took to the streets in violent protest, calling for "all power to the Soviet". In the aftermath of the turmoil Lenin fled to Finland under threat of arrest while Trotsky, among other prominent Bolsheviks, was arrested. Alexander Kerensky, a young and popular lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRP), increasingly became the central figure of the provisional government. 
By October 1917, Lenin returned to Petrograd (St. Petersburg) as he became aware that the increasingly radical city posed a legal danger and also the second opportunity for revolution. Recognizing the strength of the Bolsheviks, Lenin began pressing for the immediate overthrow of the Kerensky government by the Bolsheviks. He was of the opinion that assumption of power should happen in both St. Petersburg and Moscow simultaneously, parenthetically stating that it made no difference which city rose up first, but expressing his opinion that Moscow may well rise up first. The Bolshevik Central Committee drafted a resolution, calling for the dissolution of the provisional government in favour of the Petrograd Soviet. The resolution was passed 10-2 (Lev Kamenev and Gregory Zinoviev prominently dissenting) and the November revolution began.

II

The Bolshevik, or the Russian Revolution, triumphed on November 7, 1917 (October 26 according to the orthodox Byzantine Calendar). Apart from the heroic episode of the Paris Commune, for the first time millions of downtrodden workers and peasants seized political power, sweeping aside the despotic rule of the capitalists and landlords. They were determined to create a socialist world order.
In the early days, the regime established by the revolution was neither bureaucratic nor totalitarian but the most democratic regime yet seen on earth. For the first time in history the success of the planned economy was demonstrated, not in the pages of Das Kapital but in an arena comprising a sixth of the planet’s surface. Not in the language of dialectics but in the language of steel, education, health care and electricity. In a gigantic and unprecedented experiment it was proved that it was possible to run society without capitalists, feudal landlords and money lenders. Despite the aggression of 21 imperialist armies, tremendous objective difficulties and obstacles, the abolition of the market mechanisms and the introduction of the planned economy revolutionized the productive forces and laid the basis for a modern economy.
Actually, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the most significant events in the 20th century. It completely changed the government and outlook on life in the very large country of Russia.  It had a profound impact on the entire world. It generated a new way of thinking about the economy, society, and the government. The Bolsheviks set out to cure Russia of all its injustices that are rooted in class differences. To an extent, they succeeded. The revolution marked the end of a dynasty that had reigned for 300 years and had concluded with the seizure of power by a small revolutionary group. The Tsar was replaced by a Council of People’s commissars and private ownership was abolished. The Communist movement began to expand worldwide, by which the entire capitalist world was unnerved. In spite of several difficulties, no one can deny that this unique revolution threw a very big challenge before the entire capitalist world.
The aftermath of the Soviet Revolution was far-reaching. The revolution spread a new message of hope and liberation for the toiling people all over the world and the peoples of the colonies. It was a message of liberation from all forms of exploitation -- national, social, economic and political. This was reflected in a series of declarations, legal pronouncements and diplomatic initiatives of the new Bolshevik Government. The October Revolution heralded a new era by creating a state of the workers and poor peasants whose interest was opposed to economic exploitation, war, aggressions, colonization and social discrimination. It brought into existence a socialist state that could work as a bulwark against war and imperialism. This revolution initiated the essay towards creating an alternative world socialist system based on equality and free of exploitation, renounced any form of aggression, colonization and social prejudice, as opposed to world capitalist system that is based on colonization, economic exploitation, racialism etc. 
The socialist revolution was marked by the establishment of the first socialist state which till then was regarded by many as a distant dream. This is comparable to what happened in France in the 18th century. The Russian Revolution shook not only Russia, but radically changed the whole world. The world we see around today would be unthinkable without it just like the world of the 19th century would be unthinkable without the French Revolution. The British Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote: “The whole Europe is filled with the spirit of the revolution. There is a deep sense not only of discontent but of anger and revolt amongst the workmen against the pre-war conditions. The whole existing order in its political, social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of the population from one end of Europe to the other.”
This is the 100th year of the November revolution. It is time to reflect on its contributions. In a word, it has taught us how to dream a dream. The underlying theme of the revolution was a society free from exploitation and to emancipate humankind.  In the context of the November Revolution, Lenin proved that theory is grey, but life is green. It was his philosophy that attained fruition through the November Revolution. Many revolutions came and went, they wrought havoc to society, but the November Revolution was unique, unparalleled and novel in all aspects for it brought about momentous changes to all patterns of society and state policy for which the downtrodden humanity had longed for thousands of years. 

April 8 & 9, 2016. The Statesman


Source:
http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/hundred-years-after-i/135035.html
http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/hundred-years-after-ii/135263.html

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Janamuktikami April 2016 Issue Available

April 2016 issue of Janamuktikami is now available.
Visit Janamuktikami