How the Politics of the Left Lost Its Way

One hundred years ago, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia and set up the first long-lasting Marxist government. The Russian Revolution’s impact was wide-ranging. One important – and overlooked – effect was how it changed the idea of the term “Left” in political terminology. Following the Bolshevik takeover, the term Left became more strongly associated with collectivism and public ownership.

But originally the term Left meant something quite different. Indeed, collectivism or public ownership are not exclusive to the Left. The word fascism derives from the fasces symbol of Ancient Rome, a bundle of rods containing an axe, which signify collective strength.

The British Union of Fascists originally used the fasces on its flag.

Another effect of 1917 was to undermine further the democratic credentials of the Left. These had already been undermined by early socialists such as Robert Owen, who had been opposed to democracy. After Soviet Russia and Mao’s China, part of the Left was linked to totalitarian regimes with human rights abuses, execution without trial, little freedom of expression and arbitrary confiscation of property.

Origins of Left and Right

The political terms Left and Right originated in the French Revolution. In 1789, in the National Constituent Assembly, deputies most critical of the monarchy began to gather on the seats to the left of the president’s chair. Conservative supporters of the aristocracy and the monarchy congregated on the right side.

Those on the right wished to maintain the authority of the crown by means of a royal veto, to preserve some rights of the aristocracy, to have an unelected upper house, and to maintain major property and tax qualifications for voting.

Those on the left wished to limit the powers of the monarchy and to create a democratic republic. They demanded an end to aristocratic privileges and limitations to the powers of the church and the state.

Hence Left originally meant liberty, human rights, and equality under the law. It meant opposition to monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy, state monopolies, and other institutionalised privileges. The original Left opposed justifications of authority derived from religion or from noble birth. It supported democracy and private enterprise.

France’s Estates General, the precursor to the National Constituent Assembly.

Ostensibly, the Left has always stood for equality. But what does this mean? Does it mean equality under the law? Such equality was explicitly denied by Karl Marx and his followers, who argued that after the revolution the bourgeois class should be denied legal rights. This was put into practice after the revolution in Russia in 1917.

The pursuit of equality is not confined to socialists. Liberals such as Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill promoted the more equal distribution of income and wealth, as well as equality under the law. Liberals favour markets and private property, partly because they help protect individual autonomy. So can liberals be described as Left? Today’s Left has become so widely associated with public ownership that it would not include radical liberals in its broad movement.

The term Right has also shifted in meaning, from nationalist and traditionalist apologies for the privileges of aristocracy, to greater advocacy of free markets and private ownership, which ironically had been the territory of the original Left of 1789.

Wrong turnings?

The Marxist government in Russia quickly evolved into a one-party state. A regime of purges and terror ensued. I argue in my book Wrong Turnings: How the Left Got Lost that a slide towards totalitarianism is inevitable within Marxism. This is because the Marxist concept of class struggle and its proposal for a proletarian government undermines the notion of universal human rights, developed in the Enlightenment and proclaimed in the French Revolution.

Communism has co-opted the Left.

By the 1970s some on the Left went further, to oppose any export of Western ideas, and to reject any notion that poorer countries deserved to enjoy the same human rights that were promoted in Europe and North America. Proposals to extend these rights or values were seen as apologies for “Western imperialism”. And, in their enthusiasm for “anti-imperialist struggles” many on the Left supported terrorists and religious extremists, including the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and the regime in Iran. This is far from the views of the original Left.

Of course, people that consider themselves as Left-leaning are not obliged to follow the ideas of the original Left. But it is important to understand how strains of Left thinking have twisted and turned from their original source. And recognise that alternatives are possible – particularly when the language of politics today is so broken. George Orwell wrote in 1946:

One … ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.

The term Left has gone through major changes of meaning in the last two centuries. With this decay there has been a large degree of chaos. Meanwhile parties on the Left around the world are in crisis as a result of ideological fragmentation. If we are to have progressive change in society we need to first reconfigure the political map and no longer be restricted by what has come to define Left and Right.

Geoffrey M Hodgson is a Research Professor, Hertfordshire Business School at the University of Hertfordshire.

Courtesy: http://quillette.com

Who is celebrating creator of Pakistan in India

By Balbir Punj

It can happen only in ‘secular’ India that a person who was responsible for the vivisection of the country is feted in all quarters

The charade of ‘secularism’ was at its peak in India last week when the country ‘celebrated’ the 200th birth anniversary of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and father of Muslim separatism in the subcontinent.  Worse, this farce has gone unnoticed and unchallenged.

While several newspapers carried articles eulogising the “virtues” of Sir Syed and his lasting “services” to the country, former President Pranab Mukherjee delivered the commemoration address at AMU’s Athletics Ground last Tuesday. Terming Sir Syed as a “visionary leader of India”, Mr Mukherjee heaped praise on his creation, AMU, calling it as a “perfect example of Indian nationalism and ethos”.

If India can hail Sir Syed a hero, why deny such an honour to Muhammad Iqbal and Mohammed Ali Jinnah? The trio — Sir Syed, Jinnah and Iqbal — is revered as the spiritual founders of Pakistan. All three are described in Pakistani school books as the Muslim leaders who stressed Hindu-Muslim separateness, promoting a divisive mindset responsible for creation of Pakistan.

In an article in Express Tribune on Iqbal and Sir Syed, Pervez Hoodbhoywrote:  They share many commonalities. Both were knighted for services to the British Empire, both advocated purdah and had strongly traditional religious backgrounds”. The Express Tribune is a multi-edition English daily of Pakistan and Mr Hoodbhoy a noted Pakistan nuclear physicist.

Pakistan, to underline its distinct identity, has not named any of its public buildings or institutions after pre-Partition personalities like Gandhiji, Netaji or Bhagat Singh. However, there are dozens of institutions of eminence named after Sir Syed — recognising his contribution to the ideology of Pakistan. Apart from holding numerous functions in Sir Syed’s memory, the Pakistan postal department also issued a commemorative stamp of ‘10 to mark his 200th birth anniversary last week.

While Iqbal and Jinnah had started as nationalists and later joined the British bandwagon to Balkanise India, Sir Syed was committed to the two-nation theory right from the beginning of his public life. He worked to bring English education to Muslims so that they could gang up with the British against Hindus and he succeeded in that.

Sir Syed belonged to a feudal Muslim family who joined the East India Company in 1838 and became a judge at a small causes court in 1867, retiring from service in 1876. During the first War of Independence of 1857, he remained loyal to the Empire and saved several European lives and won the trust of the British.

On April 1, 1869, he went, along with his son Syed Mahmood, to England where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India on August 6.   His close association with the British proved mutually rewarding.

In 1887, he was nominated as a member of Civil Services Commission by Lord Dufferin. In the following year, he established the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political co-operation with the British and ensure Muslim participation in the British Indian Government.

Sir Syed was bestowed the title of Khan Bahadur and was subsequently knighted by British Government in 1898. He was created a Knight Commander of the Order of Star of India (KCSI) for his loyalty to the British crown through his membership of the Imperial Legislature Council. Like Abdullahs of the Kashmir of our times, Sir Syed too had a forked tongue. He could change his tune depending on the occasion and audience. But his basic agenda of widening the gulf among Hindus and Muslims — and cementing ties between his co-religionists and the British masters — remained unchanged.

In this context, Sir Syed’s speech made at Meerut on March 16, 1888 is very relevant. Excerpts:  “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other… Oh, my brother Musalmans, for seven hundred years in India you have had imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English government shows to the foreign nations under her there is no example in the history of the world.

“We ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mohammedan can deny this: That God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of the Mohammedans except the Christians.Therefore, we should cultivate a friendship with them, and should adopt the method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis.”

Sir Syed showed his contempt for Congress and its leaders by terming them as “Bengalis” as the bulk of Congress leadership those days came from Bengal.In the last ten years of his life, he brazenly sided with the British, vehemently opposed the Congress and propagated the two-nation theory assiduously. His brain child, AMU, played a decisive role in the creation of Pakistan. In fact, as early as 1941, MA Jinnah had recognised the contribution of AMU students to his cause and termed the university as “the arsenal of Pakistan”. On August 31, 1941, addressing the students of AMU, Liaquat Ali Khan declared: “We look to you for every kind of ammunition to win the battle for independence of (the) Muslim nation.”  Khan went on to become the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The Aga Khan also paid a tribute to the students of Aligarh 1954 in these words: “Often, in civilized history a University has supplied the spring board for a nation’s intellectual and spiritual renaissance… Aligarh is no exception to this rule. But we may claim with pride that Aligarh was the product of our own efforts and for no outside benevolence and surely it may also be deemed that the independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh.”

Without AMU there would probably be no Pakistan today. And without Sir Syed’s “vision” that translated into the two-nation theory, there would have been no AMU with such destructive potential.

(The writer is a political commentator and a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP)

Courtesy: The Pioneer

కంచె ఐలయ్య పుస్తకాలు, వాటిని తిప్పి కొట్టడం ఎట్లా?

ఇటివలే కంచె ఐలయ్య 12 పుస్తకాలను రాసిండు. ఇవి హిందువులలో ఉన్న కులాలపై, వాటిని ఆచరించే వ్యక్తులపై  తన అభిప్రాయం అనడం కన్నా, ద్వేషాన్ని కక్కిండు. సమాజంలో తప్పులు సహజం, వాటిని అధిగమించడానికి నిరంతరం పని జరుగుతూనే ఉంటుంది.

ఈ పుస్తకాలూ చదివిన చూసిన తరువాత కంచె ఐలయ్య తన మేదస్సు ను  ఉపయోగించి ముఖ్యంగా క్రైస్తవం లో  ఉన్న వర్గాలపై కూడా అభిప్రాయం చెప్తే తెలుసుకోవాలని ఉంది.

ఈ క్రింది ఉన్న కొన్ని అంశాలు చర్చిస్తే ప్రజలల్లో అవగాహనా, చైతన్యం పెరగవచ్చు.

1. క్రైస్తవులగా మతం మారిన వారు ఎందుకు సగర్వంగా తమ సర్టిఫికేట్ లల్లో సైతం మార్పు చేసుకోవాలి అని చర్చి పాస్టర్ లు ఎందుకు చెప్పడం లేదు? ఇది మోసం కాదా?  ఇది రాజ్యాంగ దోపిడీ కాదా?

2. క్రైస్తవ పాస్టర్లు ఎలాంటి ఉత్పాదకత వృత్తి లో ఉన్నారు? 

3. ప్రతి నెల నెల చర్చి కి వచ్చే వాళ్ళ దగ్గర 'దశమ భాగం' అని పైసలు వసులు చేయడం, ప్రభుత్వానికి ఎలాంటి లెక్కలు చుపెట్టక పోవడం, అమాయకుల శ్రమ, ఆర్థిక దోపిడీ కాదా?

౩. క్రైస్తవ పాస్టర్ చెప్పినట్లే చేయాలి, వాళ్ళు చెప్పిందే తినాలి, క్రైస్తవులు కాని వారు ఏ  మతం అయిన వాళ్ళు తినడానికి ఏది ఇచ్చిన తీసుకోవద్దు, ముట్టుకోవద్దు  అనడం ఆద్యాత్మిక నియంతృత్వమా? సమాజంలో చీలికలు తీసుకొని రావడం కాదా? 

4. హిందువుల దేవీ, దేవతలు రాక్షసులు, దయ్యాలు అని మాట్లాడడం. పుట్టుకతోటే వాళ్ళు పాపులు,  క్రైస్తవ మతం తీసుకోవడమే ఏకైక మార్గం, లేకపోతే నరకం లో శిక్షలు తప్పవు అనడం, మతం ముసుగులో బెదిరించడం, క్రైస్తవీకరణంలో  భాగమా?

5.  ఇంగ్లీష్ నేర్చుకోమనడం తప్పు కాదు, కాని తెలుగు పదాలను తెలిసి తప్పుగా పలకడం రాయడం ఊదా: గమనింపుడు, వచ్చుచుండిడి, కూటములు. ఇది సాంస్కృతిక దాడి కాదా? 

6. ప్రతి గ్రామంలో/పట్టణాలలో అవసరానికి మించి చర్చి నిర్మాణాలు చేపట్టడం క్రైస్తవ సామ్రాజ్యవాద లక్షణమా? భారత దేశాన్ని మొత్తం క్రైస్తవీకరణ చేయాలి అనడం జాతేయవాదమా?

7. కొన్ని కులాల వాళ్ళు క్రైస్తవ మతం మారితే హిందూ సంప్రదాయం ప్రకారం, బొట్టు ,పూలు పెట్టుకోవచ్చు, కాని అదే దళితులు అనే వాళ్ళు మతం మారితే మాత్రం బొట్టు తీసేయాలి, పూలు పెట్టుకోవద్దు, ఒక వర్గం వారి చర్చికి ఇంకొంకరిని అనుమతించక పోవడం ఎలాంటి సామాజిక వివక్ష ?

8. క్రైస్తవ ప్రార్ధనలతో రోగాలు నయం అవుతాయి అని చెప్పడం, శాస్త్ర సాంకేతికంగా వైద్య విద్యను చదివిన వారిని అవమానపరచడం కాదా? 

 9. బ్రిటిష్, రోమ్ సామ్రజ్య విస్తరణలో చర్చి ఒక విడదీయరాని భాగం అని చరిత్రకారులు తెలిపిన దాంట్లో, ఇప్పటి పరిస్తుతులను చూస్తే, నిజంగానే చర్చి లను స్థాపించి మతం అనే ముసుగులో అమాయకలను మోసం చేస్తూ దేశ చట్టాలను గౌరవించకపోవడం దేశ ద్రోహం కాదా? 

 10. ఎన్నికల సందర్బాలలో పాస్టర్ లు చెప్పిన పార్టీ కే వోట్ వెయ్యాలి అని ఆదేశించడం,  ప్రజాస్వామ్యక హక్కును దోసుకోవడమే.

BJP leader serves legal Notice to Ramachandra Guha

The eminent distortionist Ramachandra Guha speaks about democracy and its values, but safely suppresses that laws are part and parcel to protect the same democracy.

Abusing others as per will and airing blatant lies under the banner of freedom of speech does not give immunity, but it rightly invokes laws and people have every right to excise it.

Let us see what this Ramachandra Guha said while speaking to Scroll.in in a video call interview about Gouri Lankesh's murder

In response to this, Mr. Karunakar Khasale, state secretary of BJP Yuva Morcha from Karnataka sent a legal notice to Ramachandra Guha.

Ramachara Guha recalls words of Atal Bihari Vajpayee..to justify his misleading the public statement...

Atal Bihari Vajpayee said the answer to a book or article can only be another book or article. But we no longer live in Vajpayee's India

— Ramachandra Guha (@Ram_Guha) September 11, 2017

Yes, it is agreed..

But even Atalji would not have spared law breakers and this is not only limited to him exclusively , it applies to every responsible citizen of the land whoever it may be.

We all agree with

"Satyamave Jayate"....

కాళన్న యాదిలో

Ascension of Yogi Aditynath, observations for upcoming politicians

The wisdom of Rahul Baba on politics is true to his words in some cases. Our politics is every where, it is in shirts, pants, chappals and in every sort of apparel we wear and tear. It touches every element that we come across in 24/7, but it depends on how we react to it in our secular country.

Let us come to the topic, the ascension of Yogi Aditynath to be CM of Uttar Pradesh is not a small wonder. The aggressive path he has chosen, the subject he mastered were generally branded as politically incorrect and made untouchable for secular. But today these same shaped themselves to be steps of  ladder and empowered him to be the decision maker of most populous state in our country.

By observing present political developments since 2013, it is clear who have the better chance to be future drivers of India, politically.

- People should be into public life with minimum luggage, advantage for bachelors.

- Pro-nationalist and courageous enough to identify and fight against breaking India forces.

-Need of subject matter experts who have crystal clear thoughts on Indian society, it's roots and social evils.

-Exposing and fighting against fraudulent Christian missionaries involved primarily in faith conversions, Islamic imperialistic forces and bringing awareness on these subjects at grass root levels rather than in seminars or in private conversations.

 - Ready to be pall bearers of Left ideology  by building a dedicated team to light the pyre and  complete the funeral  of 'Left'.

-We have visible politicians fighting against  Islamic imperialistic forces, but there is a huge opportunity and vacuum to be branded by prestitutes as anti-Christian conversionist. Its open contest and a call "who will step into such shoes..."

- Ability to transform the social evils into political issues and offering a logical conclusive ends..

-Breaking and exposing  the unholy trinity and nefarious designs of anti-India elements taking shelter under Muslims-Christians -Left identity.

- Apart from above ,  its to be visionary who can dream of building new global civilisation where Bharat plays pivotal role.

So the contest is open as Rahul Baba whistles and sounds "Kuru"  for enthusiastic  politicians...

UP Cabinet List #YogiAdityanat

Below is the UP Cabinet list lead by CM Yogi Adityanath

Passwords to power have changed

The fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured an unprecedented victory in the elections to five state Assemblies is just one part of the story. The picture is, however, complete only after taking into account what the electorate did to Irom Sharmila in Manipur and to the Left in Uttar Pradesh.

Between the BJP’s smashing victory and the decimation of Sharmila and the Left, hangs a tale, a milestone in the chequered saga of India’s decline and her continuing struggle to reinvent and resurrect herself. Irom Sharmila, was on a “fast” for 16 years protesting against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Manipur. The 44-year-old contested elections in Manipur’s Thoubal constituency and secured just 90 votes. The Left front, consisting of six parties, had contested 140 seats out of 403 in UP. After independence, the Left was a force to reckon with in the state. But in the recently concluded elections, they secured merely  0.2 per cent votes.