Role of indian communists and 1962 war.

Discussion in 'Military History' started by ppgj, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    CIA reveals High Treason by Indian Communists – Will Mssrs Basu, Karat and Yechury Respond ? Offstumped – Center Right Indian Politics

    June 26, 2007 • 9:25 pm
    CIA reveals High Treason by Indian Communists – Will Mssrs Basu, Karat and Yechury Respond ?

    HK Surjeet influenced by Russia to setup an underground organization

    CPI did proceed to recruit a secret organization within the Indian Army

    China Russia insisted that the CPI must develop a standby apparatus capable of armed resistance, while intensifying penetration of Indian Military forces.

    With the PLA now present along the Indian Border the Indian Party had a channel of support for Armed Operations and a potential liberator in the event of mass uprisings – 13 Sept 1959

    4 powerful radio sets had been installed in the office of the China Review in Calcutta to listen to broadcasts from Peking

    Chinese Financial Subsidies to sections of the CPI particularly the left faction strongholds in West Bengal

    a foreign supply base was now available for the underground organizations with Chinese occupation of Tibet and other frontier areas

    letter asking for collaboration in Indian underground organization work aimed at an eventual revolution, because China has a border with India and can provide arms and supplies

    Also Jaipal Singh, head of the illegal organization within the Indian Army decided to reactivate his organization in May 1961 following the hard left faction gaining control of the party


    The CIA today released a collection of declassified analytic monographs and reference aids, designated within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directorate of Intelligence (DI) as the CAESAR, ESAU, and POLO series, highlights the CIA’s efforts from the 1950s through the mid-1970s to pursue in-depth research on Soviet and Chinese internal politics and Sino-Soviet relations. Of particular interest to India is a 3 part series on the border dispute with China but more juicy document is 12 MB dossier on the Indian Communist Party, this should stir up politics in India at a time when the Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi lead Congress has accorded unprecedented leverage to the Communists who are celebrating 30 years of rule in Bengal.

    Offstumped has reviewed the documents and was amazed to learn the extent to which the Communists looked for direction from Russia and China, sought support and approval and pretty much sub-ordinated national interest at the altar of a dubious ideology and subservience to the Chinese.

    Below are a few highlights:

    First we turn our focus to the border dispute with China to get a sense of Nehru’s naivety in his approach to dealing with the Chinese.

    Nehru believed China’s Communist Leaders were amenable to Gentlemanly persuasion

    Nehru’s strategy was defensive and he believed strengthening Indian Economy to resist a Chinese Military Attack was adequate

    China’s short term policy was not to alert Nehru on the wide gap between Chinese and Indian claims on border and hence they lied about Chinese maps

    Chinese leaders recognized that India neither by temperament nor by capability was a Military threat

    China’s strategy was to use diplomatic channels to cut out Indian press, public and parliament. It was a 5 year masterpiece in guile. It played on Nehru’s Asian anti-imperialist mental attitude his proclivity to temporize and his sincerity for peace with China.

    What China conceded with the Left Hand it retrieved with the Right Hand

    Had it not been Nehru but a more military minded man who was Prime Minister in Oct 1959, a priority program to prepare India to eventually fight would have been started.

    The 3 part series goes into excruciating detail on the series of events on this dispute. Expect more from Offstumped on this in later posts.

    Now we turn attention to the dossier on the Indian Communist Parties.

    The dossier runs into all of 185 pages. Its focus was on the split within the Indian Communist Parties into Pro-Soviet and Pro-Chinese factions. While recounting the sequence of events drawing from many sources including a book by Minoo Masani. A good portion of the dossier is dedicated to the CPI post Independence under Ranadive with his Pro-Soviet approach and his differences with the Telangana section of the party which was toeing the Maoist line. The dossier notes the April 1957 election win of the CPI in Kerala as the first such development in history were a Communist Party attained power through an election. It then notes that

    in July 1957 through a reliable source that EMS Namboodaripad was asked by the Soviets to forward a full report to Moscow on the methods used to attain power via elections

    Another juicy detail implicates Harikishen Singh Surjit and others on working with the Soviet Communists to setup an underground party.

    In Feb 1958 an official of the Soviet Embassy contacted CPI Leaders to renew the request to setup an underground organization. While AjoY Ghosh refused, HK Surjeet and others privately decided that Ghosh was taking a complacent line and decided to reach out to the CPSU outside of party channels.

    Here is where things get murky

    the CPI did proceed to recruit a secret organization within the Indian Army

    Subsequent events saw the beginning of the tilt of the hard left faction of the CPI towards China. The dossier quotes Basavapunniah a CPI leader

    the real source of inspiration for the CPI should be Communist China, and he planned to talk to Chinese Leaders as a Disciple talks to his teachers

    Some more murky details of how China and Russia influenced the CPI to setup a parallel state apparatus.

    In February 1959, Ajoy Ghosh in his report to the Central Executive Committee that China Russia insisted that the CPI must develop a standby apparatus capable of armed resistance, while intensifying penetration of Indian Military forces.

    After the Nehru Government dismissed the Kerala Communist Government on July 31 1959 there was further movement within the Party to revive its illegal activities.

    From 6 to 8 August 1959 hard leftists urged a revival of CPI illegal apparatus to be run from the party secretariat

    More Murky Details of CPI supporting China during the Tibetan invasion

    In April 1959 Ranadive met with the Chinese Ambassador during which he

    Offered CPI’s support to China on Tibet, and advised China to concentrate its attacks on rightist Anti-Chinese Indian leaders

    Further in August in a letter to the Chinese Communist Party drafted by Ajay Ghosh and Ranadive the CPI urged the Chinese to

    single out particularly the Praja Socialist Party and the Jan Sangh for attack as suggested in the April meeting with the Ambassador

    More evidence of the sedition and treasonous role played by the hard left of the CPI

    In the September Central Executive Committee meeting Ajoy Ghosh argued against the tendency to welcome chinese military presence on Indian borders to justify a new militant line for the CPI
    . This was rejected by the hard left who argued that

    with the PLA now present along the Indian Border the Indian Party had a channel of support for Armed Operations and a potential liberator in the event of mass uprisings.

    The CIA reports that this line was repeated multiple times. It was first reported on 13 Sept 1959 by Basavapunniah, Ranadive, Jaipal Singh head of secret illegal apparatus.

    However the dossier gets interesting as it moves to the 1960s closer to the formal split in the party. An interesting aspect of the split:

    In 1960 the West Bengal faction of the Communist Party passed a resolution criticizing the conduct of the Soviet Communist Party and Khrushchev by name while supporting the Chinese Communist Party

    The CIA calls definitely the only such resolution to have ever been passed by any Communist Party in the whole world.

    The year 1960 ended with this faction of the CPI continuing to report to the Chinese Party and to receive guidance from it

    Ajoy Ghosh also reported to the Central Executive that during his Peking visit Mao had revealed that China wished to exercise more control on Communist Parties in Asia.

    The most concentrated of these Communist Activities were to be in West Bengal

    Evidence of Chinese Influence in the growth of Communist Party in West Bengal

    A new Chinese Party consul in Calcutta in Sept of 1960 held several meetings with members of the West Bengal party.

    4 powerful radio sets had been installed in the office of the China Review in Calcutta to listen to broadcasts from Peking

    handouts were given based on these broadcasts for propaganda work


    The CIA also reports of indications from 1959 of

    Chinese Financial Subsidies to sections of the CPI particularly the left faction strongholds in West Bengal

    Basavapunniah also reports to two CPI Leaders later on that

    a foreign supply base was now available for the underground organizations with Chinese occupation of Tibet and other frontier areas

    In Sept 1960 the first evidence of a vertical split in the CPI became evident with the hard left faction comprising Jyoti Basu, Harikishen Singh Surjit, Basavapunniah, Sundarayya and Ranadive supporting the Chinese position on the Indo-Sino border dispute.

    Earlier in August further murky evidence of the hard left seeking chinese support in a written letter.

    asking for collaboration in Indian underground organization work aimed at an eventual revolution, because China has a border with India and can provide arms and supplies

    Finally more evidence of anti-national stance of the Jyoti Basu lead West Bengal faction

    When Z.A. Ahmed indicated that the Party should take a nationalist stand on Chinese incursions to India, he was severely berated by the West Bengal faction

    Offstumped Bottomline: The Communists Party of the present day must come clean on their murky past. Especially on the anti-national positions taken by the West Bengal faction while bowing to diktats from China. The Manmohan Singh Government must probe past acts of treason and prosecute those amongst the present party who participated in these acts of treason.
     
  2.  
  3. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    Communist Party of India (Marxist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. devgupt

    devgupt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah, US
    China's chairman is our chairman - a common quote heard across Bengal in that period
     
  5. Parashuram1

    Parashuram1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Geneva, Switzerland
    I always considered the entire left wing as more of a nuisance maker than of any contribution. Communism is evil personification and while it tends to stand by some 'noble' cause of poor and laborers, it does no such thing. Today it has become similar to Islamic terrorism. Please do consider all the communist countries.

    In none of them were the Communists ever elected. They always came in through armed revolution and that is what they are trying in India as well in the form of Maoists and Naxalites. I heard that your government is doing very little to contain them.
     
  6. shaunak.it

    shaunak.it New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, in India is a 'democratic' country... where our great politicians have to win votes to sit on the chair - to make money.... so.... :p
    Its really necessary to keep the masses uninformed and scared of the 'bogey man' - be it Naxalites, Maoists, ULFA, JKLF.
    The problem is that Indian politicians are leeches - be it Nehru or Rajeev Gandhi, they want to earn votes by shedding blood of our soldiers.
     
  7. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    Wasn't One of the Communist leader from Kerala expelled from the party, for organizing a blood donation drive for Indian soldiers during the war?
     
  8. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    @ppgj

    Post #1: Firstly, the link you provided does not work. Secondly, the source is apparently a CIA source, taken from a blog.

    Post #2:

    This is what you quoted:

    This is what is actually written in Wikipedia from the link you provided:

    Question: Why are you distorting (underlined in your quote) whatever is written in Wikipedia and presenting them?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2011
    raja696 likes this.
  9. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    There are plenty of examples of communists, socialists or leftists coming to power through elections.:
     
    Blood+ likes this.
  10. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    Location:
    India
    The fact is Indian commies have been stooges of those beyond. It was the Soviets and the Chinese earlier, now it's primarily the Chinese. One just needs to flip through frontline magazine and Chindu daily editions or even People's democracy (before using them as toilet paper or garbage wrap) to understand their devious and perfidious nature.

    pmaitra, I have utmost respect for your posts, but do you deny that the Indian communist leadership then and even now takes up a pro-China stand in most issues involving the two countries?
     
  11. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    so what can i do?? complain?? to whom??

    did you check when the thread was started?? more than a year?? if the site does not keep it, who am i to answer for??

    do you mind your language?? DISTORTING?? FYI, it is a 'direct quote' from the then article as it existed. why would i distort it?? do i get some pleasure bashing the communists - that you know of??

    do you know wikipedia can be edited by anyone??
     
  12. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    mayfair, no worries, I won't take this personal.

    Prelude: It would have been nice for the detractors of communism to come out openly and lambast the USSR in 1971. If we indeed have to pretend to be so principled, then we should have refused Soviet military assistance during 1971 and allowed Pakistan, PRC and USA to invade India.

    Look at my two previous posts:

    Post #7: I called out another respected member for distorting a paragraph from Wikipedia by inserting some names which do not exist in the original paragraph.
    Post #8: I called out another respected member for falsely equating communism with coming to power through avenues other than elections.

    Fact 1: Communists are divided in several factions. Some abide by the Constitution, some don't.
    Fact 2: Left and right have typically failed to see eye to eye, with each claiming the moral high ground.

    Now, for the accusations of Indian Communists following dictats from foreign powers, USSR or PRC. Some corrigenda of these accusations:
    1. USSR and PRC both believed/believe in one party system. Indian mainstream communists don't.
    2. USSR pioneered collective farming (Kolkhoz) while Indian mainstream communists have pioneered land distribution to peasants as part of land reform.
    3. USSR and PRC have accelerated construction of Nuclear Power Plants and development of Nuclear Weapons. Indian mainstream communists have been lukewarm to the former and vehemently opposed to the latter idea.
    4. PRC would like India to sign the NPT, but Indian mainstream communists have been vociferous against any attempt to sign the NPT.
    So, these few points effectively prove your arguments, and the blanket conclusions therefrom, wrong (note: I am attacking your arguments, not you personally).

    Moreover, Indian mainstream communists, though agreeing with the basic principles of Marxism with the then Naxalite movement, have been against an armed rebellion. While it is convenient for rightist forces to blame the communists of having supported the invasion of PRC, the communists (not all) who allegedly said, that 'their Chairman is our Chairman' (I guess that was the quote) said so because of the fact that even after 25 years of Independence, there was still bonded labour, class and caste divisions, repressions of the have-nots by the haves and lack of equality so inherent in typical capitalist framework. Hence, although India officially gained freedom from the British Empire, a majority of Indians were still to get freedom from these evils of capitalism. So, in practise, India was still not free and one repressive regime (British Empire) was replaced by another repressive regime (capitalist Republic of India). These communists, who supported the invasion by PRC, truly believed in what they meant and it was indeed a noble cause to seek liberation of the oppressed masses, although there is no doubt that PRC, on its part, had its evil eyes on Indian territories and was probably least interested in Marxist principles. Also note that the term 'Socialist' was inserted in the Indian Constitution only in 1989 (Section 29 A (5) of the Representation of the People Act; Section 6 of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act).

    Another reason why the mainstream left parties were against the policies of the government is rooted deep in the historical famine of 1770 (approx. 10 million dead) and the more recent famine of 1943 (approx. 3 million dead), in Bengal and Bihar. While WWII, natural calamities and lack of rainfall contributed, there were reports of hoarding by rich traders, who artificially created a grain shortage so that the price of grains would rise and they could make more profits, least caring about the common people who were dying. Even right-wing media, who do not miss an opportunity to criticise the left will vouch for that. One example is here.

    When it comes to certain issues, yes, Indian communists do concur with the PRC. I would not call that taking a pro-China stand. For example, when India and PRC cooperate, does that automatically imply that India is taking a pro-China stand? Obviously not.

    Indian mainstream communists have always had the interests of the downtrodden masses in their minds, and, call it treason or anti-national, do not feel obligated to submit to any nation-state that does not take care of these downtrodden masses. The only thing that differentiates them from Naxalites/Maoists is that the latter would even take up arms to bring down the present regime.

    Now to answer your question whether Indian communists have taken a pro-PRC stand in 1962: The answer is NO. They had taken a pro-poor stand i.e. pro poor masses on India; and hoped that military assistance from PRC will help their movement and the subsequent and true liberation of the poor masses of India, and only then will the real freedom of India, including all the poor Indians be achieved. These communists, who supported the invasion by PRC (again, not all communists supported this), truly believed that they are more patriotic than anyone else because they were representing the interests of the majority of Indians, who were poor, oppressed, lacked opportunity, could not afford legal recourses and we largely uneducated, undernourished and exploited.

    (mayfair - my humble respects to you for asking this in a very graceful and gentlemanly way; I have seen much bucolic conduct elsewhere.)

    Regarding communism:
    While one may fancy the idea of eliminating communism from the face of the earth, the uncomfortable reality for them is that as long as inequality exists, so will exist communism. The only way to eliminate communism is by eliminating inequality. Is it possible to achieve perfect equality? Only in utopia. Communism, capitalism and democracy have all failed to achieve this. Will free-market do it? We shall have to wait and see.

    Communism does not rise out of nothing. There is almost always a catalyst. While there is much public outcry against Maoists these days (I personally unambiguously disapprove of their violence), I wonder how many people remember the causes behind that. One example would be Ranvir Sena. Were the communists wrong in stating that even after 15-Aug-1947, most of India is still not free? Is it morally wrong if they refuse to owe any loyalty to a state that does not guarantee equality, which exists only in the pages of the Constitution but not in practise? Think about it.

    Personally:
    • If my children were starving to the point of death while traders were hoarding food grains to make profit out of artificial price rise;
    • If I was being forced to work in the fields growing crops only to hand over most of the crops to the landlords;
    • If I had to quietly submit to the threat of armed gangs maintained by the landlords;
    would I give a simian's posterior about 'patriotism' and 'nationalism'? Such words means a little more than a molehill on an empty stomach.

    P.S.: Although I will never support single party systems like USSR or PRC, given a choice between capitalism and communism, I would definitely choose the latter. Also, it would be wrong to assume the US to be the epitome of democracy and free-speech, despite what may exist in the US Constitution (I have much respect for what is written in the US Constitution or the Indian Constitution). Try exercising the right to free speech by preaching communism in the US. In all likelihood, you will end up in prison.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  13. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    ppgj, take it easy. I can see why you are getting excited, but my comments are based on what I saw, and what I saw was that you had quoted something that does not exist in the link. Moreover, there is nothing about my language to mind. I don't recall using any expletives.

    Regarding editing Wikipedia, try editing this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush and let me know if you succeed. If you do succeed in editing that page and if Wikipedia does not correct it, I will stand humbly corrected.

    P.S.: Wikipedia has the practice of removing unsubstantiated or unsupported claims. From what I understand, the names of the politicians existed in the Wikipedia page (probably edited by some malafide source) but were removed due to lack of evidence by Wikipedia itself. I trust you quoted in good faith so I am not accusing you any further.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  14. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    Location:
    India
    pmaitra, thanks very much for your eloquent and elaborate response. I like reading your postings because they are well articulated and succinct. My issue with Indian communists have been primarily on the extensive double speak which they practice. You mention that the communists who took a pro-PRC stand did so because "They had taken a pro-poor stand i.e. pro poor masses on India; and hoped that military assistance from PRC will help their movement and the subsequent and true liberation of the poor masses of India, and only then will the real freedom of India, including all the poor Indians be achieved.". I am afraid but I believe that to be a very weak argument. I am not a historian but from what little I have gathered from scattered reports, the patriotic fervour then was equally evident amongst the poorest of the society, whom these communists claimed to represent. I am not sure they would have appreciated someone claiming to speak on their behalf advocating subjugation by a foreign power less than 15 years after independence where many of these masses had participated. So I believe it was just hocum and an attempt to cover up their real intentions, which was victory of their ideological masters over a country which they happened to be citizens of by an accident of birth. It's not very difficult to find parallels in history for their actions. During WWII, Mao kept his communist forces in reserve, they rarely confronted the Japanese (perhaps never). But as soon as the war ended, they engaged the weakened Nationalists in a civil war, which they eventually won. Mao is on record saying that had it not been for Japanese occupation, his forces would have never seized power. Perhaps Indian communists were of the same mind.

    While it may be playing with symantics, post independence we were Socialist Republic of India and private enterprise was actively discouraged in favour of (Soviet inspired) state control of economics and businesses. True that communists initiated large scale land reforms in Bengal and Kerala. But it's not an act they monopolised. Land reforms were initiated in most Indian states post independence (save for Bihar and A.P.) and they went a long way in redistribution of excessive private land holdings to the tiller. In Bengal the communists perverted this notion by forcing party membership amongst the beneficiaries, thus, ensuring their own electoral supremacy for many years. This may not have been collectivisation in actual sense, but it was small landholdings across the state collectively owned by communist cadres. It also must be noted that Soviet Kolkhoz initiatives were taken up in a single-party regime, while communist actions in India were a part of (an perhaps in a reaction to) a democratic setup. Who knows how they will act, once they establish a single party rule in India. The state of Bengal after 30 years of uninterrupted communist rule does not inspire much confidence. However, to be fair, the fates of Bihar and U.P. (among others) under a non-communist set up are not not much to talk about either.

    Communists have actively opposed Indian nuclear program, however, they've had little to say about the nuclear weapons programs pursued by Chinese and Soviets and even Iran and Pakistanis. Red/Green nukes better than Capitalist ones? Go figure...

    They shout themselves hoarse over Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan..they spoke (or speak) no word against Tibetan genocide or Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (neither did Indian govt for that matter) or North Korean brutality against their own people. Why?

    It's well and fine to say that Communism rises out of inequality, but as history showed us, Communist states were some of the most unequal and unjust states to exist. So does it mean that Communism was flawed or its implementation was flawed? I suppose, there can be ample debate on that. The actions of Soviet "fat cats" are well documented, so are those of CCP officials in China. For a system aiming to present itself as an alternative, appearing as a mirror image of a system attacked for being evil and abominable, does not inspire much confidence does it.

    Back to Indian communists, it's different matter to concur with PRC than take up a stand closely aligned with PRC at the cost of Indian interests, is perfidious and treacherous in my book. Time and time again, many Indian communists have indicated that they'd much rather be happy advancing Chinese interests than those of India. Not sure if most will find that endearing.
     
  15. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    well sir. i am not excited. i am only replying to this -

    what does it amount to?? is it not an accusation?? accusing is as worse as using expletives. get it??

    why would i edit anything for your sake?? i have never done that nor am i interested in that.

    besides the thread and my posts are wrt 1962 war and role of indian communists. you are free to counter it with anybody who is debating with you. out of the blue accusing somebody of "distorting" does not help a sane debate.

    if you had said this before there would have been no issue besides who knows wikipedia admins did that or some other person with whatever intention??
     
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Much appreciated mayfair.

    From what I see, it was the Indian communists that supported PRC believed that PRC is going to liberate poor Indians but not occupy Indian territory just like USSR never occupied territories of Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea or Laos; the PRC, for their own selfish reasons, had plans to occupy as much territory as possible from India. The Indian communists were fooled, and so was Nehru. Yet, I do not discount the possibility that there may have been traitors, be it among the Indian communists or in other political parties or among those who decided against using the Air Force.

    Please see below what I had posted in another thread and it will probably shed some light on the perception about which state is prosperous and which state is not.


    Exactly. PRC and USSR even fought a border war on the banks of the Ussuri River and near the City of Khabarovsk.

    Very true.

    IMHO, the problem is to do with a single-party system, not with communism or capitalism per se. For example, Papa Doc was authoritarian, but capitalist. We all know the state of Haiti today. As I have already stated, I am unambiguously against single-party systems, be they capitalist or communist or nationalist or whatsoever.


    The support for PRC that existed among many Indian communists has drastically gone down post 1962. Most have realised that they were foolish in believing in the apparently noble cause of world brotherhood that will be furthered by assistance from PRC.

    Finally, mayfair, it is a pleasure debating with you. You have the skills to debate in a way that earns respect, a skill than many lack. Do keep posting.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  17. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Thank you my dear sir for conveniently ignoring the statement in bold below:

    I clearly said that I was not accusing you any further, but if you want to keep harping on it, by all means do so. What you do is entirely out of my control.
     
  18. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    Marxist envision nation states not as political units that evolved out of natural coalescing of common cultural units tethered to one another by shared or common cultural point of reference,that sets them apart from dissimilar cultural units,that modern political boundary of nation states mapped themselves on to these ancient cultural fault lines.For the Marxist the nation state is a political quantum of the economic process that a society undertakes and the socio-economic-political realities such interactions generate.The Marxist state is an ideological state whose basis is the society,which is a product of the political frontier resulting from the economic interactions within a society,which means the frontier does not follow the contours of a common race,common language or a common culture,rather the economic class of the people.The modern indian state which evolved on basis of a coming together of common cultural units,is antithesis to a Marxist state,hence Marxist have an ideological problem defending it or supporting its defense,esp when the aggressor is a Marxist state.
     
  19. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,645
    Likes Received:
    17,126
    Location:
    EST, USA
    ^^ Good point. Yes, Marxism does not believe in nationalist, ethnic or linguistic barriers. However, with PRC, it is different. For all its claims of being a Communist State, they have not shied away from citing territorial claims by former Imperialist Chinese States and Dynasties.

    From how I see it, PRC, by virtue of its actions, has been hostile to India while USSR, by virtue of its actions, have been beneficial to India. So, it would be inappropriate to equate Communism with something that is inherently harmful to India and its people.
     
  20. neo29

    neo29 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    india
    It may be fact or just a ploy by US to make India China relations hostile. But yes with China and Soviet communist machine having expansionist policy since it started, it may well be the truth that Communism did try to infiltrate India's democratic establishment.

    There were earlier reports in the 90s that all the communist parties in India did try to deny the fact that 1962 war was started by China. Since the decline of communist ideologies in India and the hatred most people have towards Maoists, China may have well established a new infiltration method using the Tibetan refugees in India.
     
  21. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    @pmaitra

    well done sir!!!

    you accuse me loudly (check the huge fonts and bolded part of your lines in the post) and when responded you follow up with this -

    'safely ignoring' what i said to that very particular quote, which i repeat -

    so what do you expect?? you can accuse anybody of "malicious intent" (even when that is untrue) just because you don't beleive in that and expect the other to just digest it without a squirm?? am i not supposed to defend myself?? are we in a communist state - where free speech is but a distant dream?? besides i am no gandhi follower either.

    and then you say i keep harping on it when all i have done is to answer/counter your accusation!!! (3 posts in all including this). when i first saw that post i felt like 'reporting' it which i did not. if you had been graceful, you would have appreciated the answer and apologised for wrongly accusing. instead you are rubbing more salt into the wound.

    PS : you are good poster and i myself (some months back) messaged you appreciating it - which you did not even bother answering. ofcourse i don't hold anything against that but i would expect a good poster to be 'balanced' and 'responsible' atleast wrt other posters in an open forum for the sake of civility and sanity.

    i rest it here and hope it is not repeated again.

    cheers.
     

Share This Page