Restless Bangladesh! Is the Turbulent Student Movement an Echo of Iran’s Islamic Revolution?

Restless Bangladesh! Is the Turbulent Student Movement an Echo of Iran’s Islamic Revolution?
Biplab Pal, July 18, 2024

Bangladesh's trains and buses have come to a standstill. The number of students injured in clashes and admitted to hospitals is rising. Colleges and universities are closed. The issue at hand is the anti-quota movement.

Sixty percent of government jobs in Bangladesh are reserved. Among this, 30% is reserved for the families of freedom fighters. The students have taken to the streets primarily to abolish this 30% quota!

But is that the real reason, or just a pretext? Is there actually a foreign power trying to use this opportunity to oust Hasina and establish an Islamic Republic of Bangladesh in the style of Iran?

A bit of history and arithmetic makes it clear that the anti-quota movement is just an excuse. In reality, the opposition forces against Hasina are uniting to remove her.

There are only 1.37 million government jobs in Bangladesh. The country's population is 180 million. If you consider the working-age population, less than 1% hold government jobs. If you compare the number of graduates to government job openings, only one in 200 graduates will get a government job. The process is not transparent; bribery and exam leaks are rampant, just like in India.

Salaries in Bangladeshi government jobs are not particularly good. Yet, everyone is desperate for a government job because of corruption and bribery. A peon’s monthly salary might be thirty thousand taka, but you will find their children studying in Canada and owning three large houses. Government jobs in Bangladesh are a guaranteed path to wealth. They share the spoils of looting the country. There are areas in America and Canada where only Bangladeshis live. Their wives and children live there, attending American schools. These areas are called "Begum Para." The husbands are government employees in Bangladesh.

Maybe one in a hundred will get a government job, but it is the surest path to becoming wealthy in Bangladesh. Hence, there will inevitably be fights and clashes over these jobs.

The government had abolished this 30% quota in 2018. Freedom fighters took the matter to the High Court, which reinstated it. The government appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. The government is not in favor of maintaining this quota. But according to the constitution, they must wait for the Supreme Court's verdict. Therefore, the anti-government movement lacks logic in this context. Yet, it is happening.

The main reason is the widespread anger against Sheikh Hasina's authoritarianism. Here, I see shadows of Iran.

Under Reza Shah Pahlavi, Iran’s economy surpassed England’s and spread across Europe. However, all this wealth was concentrated among the 1-2% loyal to Reza Shah. The remaining 99% did not taste this prosperity. Consequently, the disenfranchised united with the mullahs and the leftists. Together, they ousted Reza Shah. Within a year of the revolution, the mullahs killed all the leftist leaders, taking 100% control in Iran.

Bangladesh is heading in that direction. Reza Shah Pahlavi was under American protection. Iran flourished with American investment and cooperation. Similarly, Hasina is under Indian protection. Under her leadership, Bangladesh has made significant progress in the past 15 years, surpassing India in many areas. But the cream of this progress has been enjoyed by the Awami League’s people. The remaining 99% are left out of this prosperity. One percent of Bangladeshis go to India or Europe for shopping, while the remaining 99% struggle to make ends meet. The anger against Hasina is intense, but all democratic avenues to express this anger are blocked. Bangladesh is sitting on a powder keg, needing just a spark to ignite.

However, Hasina will not face the same situation as Reza Shah Pahlavi, because at that time, the Democrats were in power in America, and they did not support Shah in crushing the movement. In this case, Hasina will receive full cooperation from Modi's government. India cannot risk losing Hasina.

To the progressive Bangladeshis who are joining this anti-Hasina movement with Shibir and Jamaat, I say, read the history of Iran. If Hasina falls, within six months, either you will flee to India, or your bodies will be lying in Bangladesh.

Finally, let me share a conversation between Tajuddin and Sheikh Mujib on August 12, 1975. I heard this from Tajuddin's daughter, Sharmin Ahmed. Tajuddin was then outside the cabinet. He had resigned, unable to tolerate Sheikh Mujib's autocracy. Sheikh Mujib was confused, surrounded by enemies, and people were starving. He wanted to bring Tajuddin back into the cabinet. Tajuddin told him, "Sheikh Saheb, people can tolerate hunger if they have an outlet to vent their anger. You have blocked that path too! Where will their anger go? If they cannot remove you democratically, they will try to remove you with bullets." Needless to say, that's what happened two days later.

Sheikh Hasina should remember that the British created the Indian National Congress as a safety valve for the people’s anger. To sustain autocracy for long, you need an opposition, even if it is a controlled one. Otherwise, unrest will ignite without any issue. No one would have shot Sheikh Mujibur Rahman if he had left a democratic path open to remove him. Learn from your father's death and at least open a safety valve for anger. Beating and killing protesters will only intensify the movement. You know this. You indirectly said this in your address to the nation today. But will your people believe you if you don't create space for opposition?

The anger of the 99% is very dangerous. During a period of peace, Yudhishthira asked Vidura why people rebel against the king. Vidura said, "O King, when the king’s councilors plunder the state’s wealth with the king’s support, and the people remain poor, that inequality makes the subjects rebellious." That is what is happening in Bangladesh.

The Future of Bangladesh: Echoes of Uncertainty

 The Future of Bangladesh: Echoes of Uncertainty

Biplab Pal, July 20

(This article is long. However, you might want to save it for later. If my predictions about the next twenty years in this region come true, you should be cautious. Share this to warn others.)

(1) A Peaceful Bangladesh - Is It Just a Dream?

The biggest problem with our mindset is that we grew up in a period of peace. We have matured in a historical time when there have been very few wars globally.

Following the back-to-back world wars, the entire civilization became much more peace-seeking. Those of us who grew up in India have lived through a relatively politically peaceful period. Because democracy has functioned in this region, specifically in India. Power transitions have been peaceful.

The Liberation War of 1971, when Bangladesh gained independence, was a significant war in the post-World War II era. It was the largest war in the past 100 years of India's history. However, it's doubtful whether the firepower used in the 15-day India-Pakistan war of 1971 matches the destruction seen in just a few hours of the World War II Operation Barbarossa.

We have assumed that this peaceful world, where we have democratic rights and our homes and families are protected by the state’s military and police, is the norm.

We think that is how it always is! We think that our families and homes being destroyed by war is unthinkable.

Even though during Partition, Bengalis lost their homes to riots and became refugees. But that was a short-lived past. The younger generations have forgotten this. We assume civilization has progressed to a point where war won't happen. Our lives, property, and everything are secure.

Maps of India and Bangladesh are secure. As if these countries existed thousands of years ago and will remain for thousands of years more!

The pieces on the chessboard of time have not moved for a while. We assume the game is over! There are no more moves!

(2) Can Bangladesh Remain Geographically Independent?

The biggest outcome of World War II was that several countries were created solely by the will of America and the Soviet superpowers. In 1944, they divided their list of subordinate states.

Many countries were born in this peace period. There are many such countries in the world whose independent existence should not have been possible by geographical rules. Examples include Taiwan. The most significant example is East and West Pakistan.

You might say, why the will of superpowers? Wasn't Pakistan a demand of Indian Muslims?

These are incorrect histories taught in Indian and Pakistani schools. There is extensive research on these topics. The real truth can be found in the first volume of my book on the history of Partition. Indian Muslims did not want Pakistan. In the 1937 elections, the Muslim League received only 3% of the vote. When Muslims rejected him, Jinnah was deeply saddened. He retired from politics and moved to London. In Bengal, Muslim votes went to the Krishak Praja Party. In Pakistan, they went to various local parties like the Unionist Party. But why did these two parties merge with the Muslim League? What role did British intelligence play? Why were Muslim leaders who opposed Partition assassinated? No one asked these questions. In India, Muslims were blamed for Partition, and in Pakistan, it was considered a war victory. The actual game played by British intelligence remained hidden.

I have written about this extensive history in my book.

Anyway, look at the geography of Bangladesh. You will see history within that geography.

At birth, Pakistan was a surprising country with 2000 miles of India separating its two parts. Fortunately, India's Prime Minister at the time was Jawaharlal Nehru, an idealist and anti-war advocate. In 1947-48, he had two opportunities to reunite India, but he feared war and bloodshed. As a result, an unnatural geographical country named Pakistan survived. A country where the state language was Urdu, but only 1% of people in East and West Pakistan knew Urdu. Who were the rulers of this country? Elite Muslims from India! They had no connection with the Bengalis, Sindhis, or Pathans of Pakistan. The country survived through military rule and American aid.

But why 1971? Why did it take 24 years to break Pakistan in two? East Pakistan made the security of India's seven northeastern states shaky. If China and East Pakistan captured the 17 km Siliguri Chicken Neck, the seven states would be isolated from India. This Chicken Neck is India's most vulnerable security point. The Indian military knew this, but Nehru did not consider it. His dream was of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai! By the time of the 1962 war, when China was close to capturing the Chicken Neck, Nehru realized that ideals are not believed by anyone. If that part of East Pakistan was not with India, there would be no security for Northeast India. The 1962 Indo-China war and the 1964 India-Pakistan war made it clear that without separating East Pakistan, it would be impossible to hold Northeast India. This was when the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was born. Its first major mission was to create Bangladesh by collaborating with the Awami League. Nehru was an idealist, but Indira Gandhi believed in realpolitik. Thus came 1971. It took Congress 24 years to understand the pain of the Chicken Neck.

Bangladesh became independent. But can a country surrounded by a large one like India maintain an independent foreign policy or military? European history shows that it is not possible. There is no precedent in world history where a country surrounded by a large nation has maintained an independent foreign policy. No large state has ever allowed it. In all cases, such a country either becomes a subordinate state or remains as a protectorate country. For example, the Caribbean or West Indies islands. These countries are subordinate to either America or Britain. Their military protection is the responsibility of America. Venezuela cannot attack Guyana because Guyana is now under American protection. The only exception is Cuba, which was first a Spanish colony, then gained independence with American help and was under American protection until the Communist revolution, after which it came under Soviet protection.

RAW's founder Kao Saheb knew this well. He advised Indira Gandhi to make a deal with Sheikh Mujib to ensure Bangladesh does not maintain a military, relying on India for protection. Indira Gandhi did not prioritize this. It is said that she believed whether Bangladesh had a military or not was the same. Indira Gandhi was confident that Bangladesh would not become an enemy of India for what she had done for it. But Indira was proven wrong by 1975. Anti-India forces blew up Sheikh Mujib and his family. From 1975-1991, Bangladesh was completely under anti-India forces. The bases of Northeast separatist militants were in Bangladesh. Why did Indira and her son Rajiv not intervene? Why did they allow anti-India BNP to grow?

The main reason was India's weak economy. The military was in poor condition due to low dollar reserves. There was no money to buy weapons. There were separatist movements all around. India was busy handling Pakistan, Kashmir, and Punjab. India did not notice that Bangladesh was becoming another Pakistan.

India was alerted during the 2001-2006 BNP rule in Bangladesh. Khaleda Zia openly made Bangladesh a pasture for Pakistan's ISI. Dhaka was becoming the center of every anti-India terror operation.

India was no longer the same India. Due to the 1991 reforms, dollar reserves had increased manifold. BJP had come to power. The Kargil war made India realize it needed to significantly boost its military strength. Therefore, a pro-India government in Bangladesh became a priority for Delhi. First, India supported the 2006-8 caretaker government. Then, due to Delhi’s longstanding relationship with Sheikh Hasina, India decided to strengthen her position and destroy anti-India forces like BNP.

Simultaneously, India's national capitals like Tata, Ambani, and Adani began increasing their investments in Bangladesh. Previously, Indian capital was almost absent in Bangladesh. But now, significant Indian investments are in the country, and Delhi’s Bangladesh policy is determined by Indian industrialists.

The problem is that Bangladeshi Muslims, particularly businessmen, are pro-India because they want to expand their businesses in India. However, the majority of religious Muslims in Bangladesh are intensely anti-India. Therefore, any democratic government in Bangladesh would be intensely anti-India. But Indian and Bangladeshi businessmen will not allow an anti-India government because it would harm their businesses. Additionally, Delhi cannot allow another Pakistan on its doorstep.

So, how can Bangladesh taste democracy? The majority of the country is anti-India. On the other hand, the capital of both countries and Delhi will not let that happen. What is the solution?

(3) The Future of Democracy in Bangladesh

Bangladesh cannot achieve democracy as long as it remains anti-India. Therefore, the ongoing civil conflict will continue, stop, and then resume until everyone in Bangladesh’s politics understands that opposing India is not an option due to geographic realities. This realization will come if India continues to grow stronger militarily and economically. Consequently, the people of Bangladesh will have to accept that there is no future without good relations with India.

An exception might occur if India disintegrates like the Soviet Union. But is that possible? Why did the Soviet Union break apart? It was mainly because it could no longer feed its people, coupled with weak production and a police state.

In India, food prices are rising rapidly due to global warming and the failure to pass agricultural reform bills. In June 2023, food prices increased by 9%, and this June, food prices have risen by 11%. Despite a $24 billion subsidy, costs keep climbing because of increasing agricultural production expenses and a lack of modern technology in Indian agriculture. No military can sustain a country facing a food crisis. Pakistan is on the brink of collapse for similar reasons.

If modern agricultural technology is not introduced, the food crisis in India will worsen. The Reserve Bank of India has stated that food prices are rising at a rate of 7-9%. If this crisis continues, it will be challenging to keep India united. Issues like language policy, ethnic conflicts, and regional politics won’t break India apart; a food crisis will.

Therefore, India also faces significant challenges. If India overcomes these and emerges as a stronger state, Bangladesh will have two options: either all Bangladeshi political parties will become pro-India, allowing the Bangladeshi people to enjoy democracy, or a strong anti-India movement will arise in Bangladesh, which seems to be the direction in which the country is heading. In this scenario, the anti-India movement will quickly turn into an anti-Hindu movement, spreading hatred against Hindus, leading to the destruction of homes, murders, and rapes. In such a case, India will intervene militarily to restore order, similar to the 2006-2008 caretaker model, where a prominent economist, scientist, or professor would become president with military backing, gaining public trust by tackling corruption and helping businesses. A government trusted by the capitals of both India and Bangladesh will be installed.

If a China- or Pakistan-aligned government comes to power, it will be removed through military rebellion, which might even lead to civil war.

West Bengal should prepare for Hindu refugees from Bangladesh. This is the harsh reality now.

Malicious and misinformed campaign against India in Kashmir issue

[1]

Since 6th August, several articles/OpEd  have been published in New York Times (NYT), Bloomberg  and Washington Post on Kashmir Issue.  In short, those articles are vitriolic attack against Indian Government (GOI) with misinformed and twisted information by a handful of Journalists.  I am citing a few articles published in US media to expose how misinformed journalists are maligning the image of GOI. However, I am also appalled while Pakistani PM Imran Khan Niazi has launched all out media attack against India to sway International opinion about Kashmir issue in favor of Pakistan, there is not much of media push to defend the position of India from  Indian embassy in DC.  As a result, to a large section of American people, GOI is being portrayed as oppressor, tyrannical and rogue Government. Given the fragile and polarized  democracy in United States and a rising left populism in American Congress which for the first time raised the Palestine issue against Israel, there is a serious possibility that a victory of a far left Democratic president like Bernie or Liz Warren may tilt the Kashmir issue in favor of Pakistan in future if Indian mission in DC doesn't  throttle the malicious campaign of New York Times and Washington DC against GOI in  Kashmir Issue.

[2]
 Example-1 :
 Arundhuti Roy, New York Times, 15th of August
 Silence is the loudest sound 
 My response:

A very archetypal Arundhuti Roy article which is bereft of any factual history. She has built a story out of her quintessential ignorance blessed with a call for humanity against fictional victimization of Kashmir.

We can take a closer look at her claim that by abrogating 370, Indian Government is breaking a sacrosanct contract:

1) Article 370 is due to contractual obligation laid out in Instrumentation of Accession (IOC) of the Princely States as claimed by Roy ?

Following Indian Independence Act, 1947, 560 Princely states of British India signed the instrumentation of accession( IOC) to be part of either India or Pakistan. King of Kashmir Hari Sigh signed the same IOC document that other 560 states have signed before him. There was no separate IOC for Kashmir. It was all the same for all the 560 Princely States.

Does those Princely States have article 370 ? Why they become an integral part of India and Kashmir didn't ? Why Roy's article doesn't speak about that part of the history where all the other 560 states which did sign instrument of accession agreed to abide by Indian Constitution ? I doubt whether she even knows that part of the history.

Truth is, even if IOC proclaimed, all the signatory states will be allowed to have their separate constitution in internal matter of state ( other than Defense, Foreign Policy, Currency and Communication) , they needed to form a state Constituent Assembly to draft their own constitution. Constituent Assembly of India which was entrusted with drafting of constitution had been formed from representatives of all the states and creeds. Except for handful of states, most of the states couldn't form their state constituent assembly to draft their state constitution. Then majority of the members of Constituent Assembly decided that Princely States do not need a separate constitution since Indian Constitution will protect the right and dignity of all the states, religions and castes by separate provision. Based on the universal nature of Indian Constitution all the 560 States abdicated their claim to autonomous statehood and thus the need for a separate state constitution.

Leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah didn't agree to this decision of Constituent Assembly and its Chairman Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Sheikh argued and appealed to Indian Prime Minister Neheru that Indian Constitution needs to provide special provisions for state of Kashmir to show compliance with IOC. Else plebiscite can go against India.

This was in 1949 and India had already moved to UN asking for Plebiscite in Kashmir in 1948

Neheru was about to leave for a long trip in United States and he handed the matter to Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Patel was not enthusiastic but it was agreed with Seikh Abdullah that this will be a temporary provision till Plebiscite. Based on this, GopalSwami Iyenger and Seikh Abdullah drafted article 370 and it was passed in Constituent Assembly by every Indian Politician including the most vocal opponent of the Article and leader of Jana Sangha ( old name of BJP), Shree Shyama Prasad Mukhopadhyay. Reason is simple. Article 370 very clearly stated, President of India can terminate it any time based on advice from Constituent Assembly. of Kashmir and it is a temporary provision.

Everyone then thought, article 370 is a temporary arrangement to appease the people of Kashmir to acquire them into Indian Union. Otherwise, no politician in sane mind would agree to a contract in which people of Kashmir was destined to get four to five times more per capita budget allocation than rest of India. And in return, Indians will have no right to buy any land or invest in any business in Kashmir. An Indian can invest in United States but not in Kashmir while an Indian has to pay for hefty amount to Kashmir each year. How funny is that?

Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was dissolved in 1956. Due to absence of Constituent Assembly, it was solely upon President of India to terminate the Article 370. That's exactly what President of India, Ram Nath Kovind has done. It is a total internal matter of India and no legal violation has been done. Article 370 is a part of Indian Constitution and only people of India have right to terminate which they did since it was a sheer ill conceived appeasement policy.

Now let me cite another example of why IOC was never a binding document in the matter of Partition of British India as Ms Roy has claimed.

2) Nawab of Junagar Mahabat Khabji did sign the instrument of accession (IOC) to Pakistan on 15th August 1947. Pakistan accepted it in September. But since the state was a Hindu majority state in Gujrat, India sent military and annexed the state by Plebiscite in December. Why there is no hue and cry over Junagarh ? Simple. It was a Hindi majority state and it's by a Plebiscite of 99.9% vote, the state decided to remain in India despite its Muslim ruler signed IOC with Pakistan!

3) So from 1 & 2 it is clear IOA was never a contractually obliging document in the matter of assimilation of Princely States to India or Pakistan. Two nation theory which dictated Muslims for Pakistan and Hindus for India was the most abiding principle of partition. So let's ask the question then. Why Muslim majority Kashmir valley is not transferred to Pakistan ? Why it didn't happen that way?

4) What is often and conveniently forgotten by every Pakistani who are sure of their God given right to Kashmir, is the most inconvenient truth that Sheikh Abdullah, leader of National Conference, the only true leader of Kashmiri people decided to join Indian Union. He had supported decision of Hari Singh to join Indian Union. He rejected the idea of Pakistan as theocratic state and wanted Kashmir to boom in secular India where Kashmiri people should be getting a more progressive Government by a progressive leadership. He developed a separate Kashmiri Millitia to fight against Pakistan when frustrated by Sheikh's love for India,Pakistan sent armed tribesmen to capture Kashmir by force. What is also forgotten that Indian military was assisted by militia of Sheikh Abdullah to repel the Pakistani incursion.

4 ) Because Kashmiri leaders were in favor of joining Indian Union, India went to UNSC for a permanent solution through Plebiscite. In 1950, when the Kashmir issue was hot on the agenda of the UN, Sir Owen Dixon, an eminent jurist from Australia, was appointed by the Security Council as the UN Representative to resolve Kashmir issue. From July 20 to 24 [1950], he held a conference of the Prime ministers of India and Pakistan, J Nehru and Liyakat Ali Khan, and formulated three plans for placing the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir under one administration. The single administration would alternatively be composed of a coalition of an Indian-sponsored regime, the "Azad Kashmir Movement" and of "trusted persons outside politics" or of the United Nations representatives. As a second step, demilitarization of Kashmir would begin on both sides of the ceasefire line. And as a third step, a plebiscite would be held to decide whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan. Pakistan never agreed.

According to Dixon plan Kashmir was divided into 5 part. Buddhist Ladakh, Jammu , Kashmi valley, Gilgit and current Azadi Kashmir area. When Plebiscite looked impossible, he even suggested Ladakh and Jammu to India and rest to Pakistan. Pakistan didn't accept that either. The greedy and failed nation wanted whole of Kashmir.

Whose fault it is then? Neheru went to UN to resolve it . Pakistan didn't want a logical solution based on two nation theory.

Why her article is silent about greed of Pakistan which failed the Muslim of Kashmir ?

I doubt whether she even read history of Kashmir to any reasonable depth.

(5) She also shed her intellectual tears for Pundits of Kashmir Valley who were uprooted by the Jihadist violence in 1990. She wrote BJP Govt failed to resettle Pundits into valley. Why a Govt has to resettle them into their own land ?? Does she understand by that statement she tacitly admitted Muslims of the Kashmir valley are so communal that they are not allowing Pundits to return to their home ?

And if 5 is right, why people of India who are predominantly Hindu would have sympathy for Muslims in Kashmir who showed no mercy to their Hindu neighbors ?

She can only appeal to enemies of India by titillating fictional stories of human right violation.

 [3] Example-2 Bloomberg : 12th August
 Is India creating its own West Bank ?

   My response is published in India America Today, a DC based Web Journal.
  "Abolition of 370 and future of Kashmir"

 //A country within a country is never a good idea. Look at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank. Kashmir was becoming the Gaza Strip of India. With abolition of 370, they are also equal citizens and an integral part of India, and prospering business would take care of them. Young Kashmiris need jobs and not self destructive politics. Neither do they deserve military presence because Indian Tax payers were paying for the indignation!

Why should the International community bother at all? Did India invade a new land? Is it a genocide? Humanitarian crisis? If it is anything, it is for the uplifting the economic status of Kashmir. They would live better.

Questions are being raised by liberals about why Kashmiris are not being consulted. Bengal and Punjab were partitioned as well. They were not consulted nor did they consent. West Bengal was forced upon Bengali Hindus where as Bengali Muslim were forced to East Pakistan. Similarly, Kashmir was also divided between PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) and Indian Kashmir. It’s time to recognize, irrespective of how we get here, process was no different than what Punjabis or Bengalis faced by partition. If they are an integral part of India and prospering within the federation, then what is the issue in Kashmir following the same roadmap?//

 

 [4] Example -3: Speech of Imran Khan on 6th August which was translated and gained widespread views in different US media after translation and explanation notes

 I responded to Khan's speech in my Facebook account and Politics India page, a community of 50,00 NRI. However, I couldn't take it to American Media which needs to know nature of vicious campaign by Pakistani premier who is comparing India with Nazi Germany.

 My response can be found in this blog post
 Imran Khan against abrogation of 370- a vicious speech in Parliament 


 Therefore, it is my urgent request to Indian mission in Washington DC to counter the malicious media campaign against GOI in Kahmir issue

AAP-a shadow of communist movement in 70s?

I may not agree with populism of AAP but I have to admit AAP has started a new inspiring movement for those who otherwise thought to have distanced politics thanks to lack of purity in the game. Change they want to bring in is definitely positive but I am not sure their action is in sync with their earnest desire for change.

  Frankly I have not seen anything new in AAP that I have not seen in CPM during 1970-77 phase. Communist leaders of 70's were more aam aadmi than Kejriwal & Co.  They led even simpler life than today's aam aadmi. But it all changed once they came to power. Party, the people, the mission-all changed since 1977 and eventually they become another party in Indian politics. They tried every trick that AAP tried-local democracy to people, local democracy to party and endless populist agenda from state budget.

  Then what happened to them? Did people feel empowered?

 Actually they did in WB for a brief.  When they came to power in 1977, there were hopes that this will be a common people's Government. And in many sense-it was. Most of the ministers of CPM were mostly school teachers. Panchayet election gave power to local villagers. A lot of commoners came to power only to become the ruling class of the next!

 But eventually the party eroded in history as proverbial power poisons everything in the party. The same leaders who used to go to school in Bi-Cycle started riding Maruti in a matter of two decades. Changes were slow compared to other part of India but power took its toll on CPM very slowly but surely.  Rank and file of the party become arrogant, obdurate and drunk with power.  With power came the illusion of invincibility and they started justifying every wrong thing they did.

In more academic analysis, communist movement's decline has to do with issues of production. Indeed the most basics of Marxism is about survival and selection of a society with more productive force.  CPM didn't encourage entrepreneurship. They made them class-enemy  as dictated by their ideology.  And we all know the result. In 1977, WB was the state with 3rd largest industrial production ( next to Gujrat and Maharastra)  which become one of the worst productive state only to be compared with Bihar! Populism, pro-people can not last long if people do not get jobs. Villages after villages of WB are empty of their adult male members because they work as laborer in the other states.  The state has simply no opportunity and it was only a matter of time myth of pro-people, populist CPM was waiting to be busted.

 Nevertheless they did achieve power to people to some extent but at the end, that didn't mean much in long run because people were leaving the state due to lack of opportunity. If opportunities, jobs do not exist what is the value of political empowerment ?  Whom you are going to empower, if the very people are forced to leave the state!

 However, there is only one sharp difference between AAP and CPM movement.  AAP is led by Arvind Kejriwal who is intelligent and can adapt to new policies. CPM leadership was inept and mired in obsolete,  inapplicable theories of communism.  AK is more pragmatic and that can be a silver line for AAP movement.

Maladies of Politics ! Age old Golds..

Upanishad warned us against three basic root of attachment which cause downfall of a person and his character ..

1. Attachment to physical & sensual pleasure
2. Greed for name and fame
3. Chasing after bookish/codified knowledge leaving self realization

When you add all three-you get a politician. And they are at the top of our society. In Democracy, it has been always like this.

So where lies the bottom line?

Incidentally, neither Plato nor Socrates was happy with the first democratic republic born in Athens. According to them, the first democracy of the world produced first class citizen and worst class politician. Yet history is testimonial to the fact, world's greatest civilization was born only during the period Athens enjoyed its democracy.

Therefore, despite poor politicians, democracy is the best political system. There is only one rule to make democracy better. Hold your politicians tight to his/her belt. Do not allow them to fool you by their crafty acting. Judge them by their action and task delivered.

Be committed to your country and its people but not to a party or politician. Committed vote bank is the source of their power. And power is root cause of all political corruption and violence. Take that power out by being non-committed to a party, a politician- they will be better controlled by the people.

Dropping of "Buy India" policy in Electronics-Time to start second Swaraj movement against corrupt UPA Govt.

Biplab Pal, 10th July, 2013
biplab@zreyastechnology.com/biplabpal2000@gmail.com

Although India is shining in IT sectors thanks to outsourcing, the country is continually losing its capability in electronics and mechanical R&D/manufacturing. We run a small Electronics R&D company in USA and in India. My experience has confirmed getting electronics and mechanical talents/vendor/components in India is an increasingly difficult task. Reason is simple. This industry didn't grow at all  and worse, it has lost capabilities thanks to Chinese dumping of electronics good in Indian market. Today situation is so critical, India needs to import even the most simplest micro-motors and other communication chips. Nearly 100% of its electronics components are imported. Even the basics of electronics industry, PCB fabrication is facing a looming threat before cheap Chinese competition.

    Under this dire situation of electronics industry in home, Indian Govt. issued a preferential market access (PMA) policy. Under this policy, any foreign company who is selling electronics goods in Indian Govt, Telecom sector etc had to produce at least 30% of their goods in India. This policy did no discrimination against foreign companies. The policy wanted the foreign companies to set up manufacturing unit in India. This had tremendous potential for all round growth in electronics industry in India as the vendor line would have swelled. Moreover, it would have created jobs for skilled and unskilled Indians interested to pursue a career in Electronics.

  Besides homegrown Telecom equipment companies like Tejas would have benefited. Today, China is boosting two giant telecom vendors who have outplayed their western rivals CISCO and Alcatel/Lucent-Huawei and ZTE have grown to be the largest Telecom equipment company in the world. If you look at the history of both the companies, they have grown very fast on Chinese Govt order flow. On the other hand, Tejas in India could not grow and they are still struggling due to lack of order from Indian Govt. This was in sharp contract with Chinese Govt policy towards ZTE and Huawei which helped them to propel as $30B company within last two decades. Therefore PMA would have reversed all the mistakes done by the Indian Govt. in the past for not boosting local electronics industries.  Example of ZTE vs Tejas shows PMA is absolutely needed for India to boost its electronics manufacturing base.

   Many small companies like us who have operational electronics unit in India saw the benefit as well. Under the new policy, all foreign companies who wanted to sell products in India had to partner with local Indian companies to produce them in India. This would have led to job and industrial growth. Before this policy,  all these foreign  companies needed to do for bagging a contract in Indian public sector- hire an expensive dalal in Delhi who is a nephew of Minister X and they are done with their duties towards India to bag multi-billion dollar deal from Indian defense.

  We already started seeing its benefit. Since the PMA was declared on February 2013, we have already seen around $100M new FDI in this sector in India. Expert estimated this policy would have created 2M direct and indirect job in next 10 years.

 But on 8th July, PMO decided to drop present  PMA under tremendous pressure from foreign companies and other countries pursuing their interest in India. I am totally shocked by the perverted logic for dropping "Buy India" policy! Lobby groups are terming it as unrealistic target as India is not prepared for such a scale of manufacturing! Well then they have established the logic of why this PMA was needed in India badly in first place.

 It is clear the present Govt. acted under the pressure and money from Delhi  dalals hired by foreign companies who do not want to set up manufacturing in India due to  archaic Indian company laws. President of US-India business council, Ron Somers indicated India does not need a PMA policy as these companies will set up manufacturing base in India automatically provided they get right kind of infrastructure.  If that is the case they should try to reform the Indian bureaucracy which is deterrent to manufacturing initiative. We would have welcomed those steps. But Indian Govt should not succumb to the pressure from them at the expense of the interest of its own people.

   This action of dropping "Buy India" policy  amounts to treason against Indian people by its own Government.  For once, I certainly want Indian opposition parties to expose the present Govt. as stooge of foreign interest in Delhi. They need to hold UPA responsible for loss of 20 lakhs job to pave the way for dalal-raj in Delhi.
   

Indian court wants to ban Google and Facebook?

It seems to me the great disconnect between ruling class of India and world reality is widening apart. Laws confining to a country is outdated in the Internet world-more ever, even the concept of a nation and country will cease to exist sooner than many people can even dream. Those who have read Plato's republic as Bible of "Ruling class politics" must have learned that world has been ruled by showing "control/sanctioned" over social action and "the republic" is dead!

As most of the social actions will be happening through social media, e-commerce, trading algorithm and emails, state will have diminished role to play or to impose laws in any of these. Just for an example, when two parties, let say one in India and another in Pakistan do business through a site like elance or Guru, their trading actions are auto-guided more by the algorithmic rule than by the laws of any country.

This high court judge from Delhi only conspicuously proved how ignorant Indian judges can be- not just about the realities of web world but about the laws as well-because laws are founded on the principle of achieving greater good for greater mankind- ulitarianism.

Blocking Google and Facebook amount to taking India back to Pakistan or Talibaan or prehistoric age. You don't stop research on nuclear power just because it can also deliver Atom Bomb. Nuclear power will be absolutely necessary for mankind. You can not ban Internet because it spreads porn.

Besides, what is obscene? It is a subjective choice and in Google or Facebook you can always filter your own feed. Technology offers you that option. In the days of Internet, one can not decide what is good for me-I am to decide what is obscene for me. Old authoritarian world is dead-a new free world has been born from the womb of facebook. You either accept it or take "Vanaprastha" in Himalaya.