এই সাইটটি বার পঠিত
ভাটিয়ালি | টইপত্তর | বুলবুলভাজা | হরিদাস পাল | খেরোর খাতা | বই
  • টইপত্তর  অন্যান্য

  • ঋতব্রত ও সংশয়

    তাপস
    অন্যান্য | ১৩ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ | ৫৬৩০♦ বার পঠিত
  • মতামত দিন
  • বিষয়বস্তু*:
  • sm | 52.110.167.252 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:১২369517
  • এনার জন্য তো মুশকিল আসান বাম লাগবে দেখছি।
    রিত ব্রত কেন নেপাল -ভুটানের লাইন নেবে?সে নিজে যা ভালো বুঝবে করবে। যতদিন মুকুল দলে আছে ততদিন মুকুল দল বিরোধী কাজ করলে দিদি তলব করতে পারে। দল যদি মুকুল কে বহিষ্কার করে তো সে দলের হয়ে কথা বলবে কেন?
    ঋতব্রত দলের বিরুদ্ধা চরণ করতেই পারে। এমন কি পার্লামেন্টেও করতে পারে। দল ই সেই ব্যবস্থা করে দিয়েছে।
  • PT | 213.110.242.6 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:১৯369518
  • এই সব গভীর ব্যাপার বুঝতে পারে যারা তারা সাধারণতঃ আনন্দমার্গী না হয়ে বামমার্গী হয়.........
  • India Today | 209.249.223.66 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:৩৯369519
  • অশোক মিত্রের বয়স কম বলেছে

    The Left is the only hope for the country, the rest are all scum: Ashok Mitra in conversation with Prasenjit Bose

    Ashok Mitra and Prasenjit Bose represent two generations of the Indian Left. Mitra, 84, is a well-known economist. He was finance minister in West Bengal between 1977 and 1987 and chief economic adviser to Indira Gandhi's government. Prasenjit Bose, 38, is a former convener of the CPI(M)'s research unit. He criticised the party for backing Pranab Mukherjee's candidature as President and was removed from the party. Mitra and Bose have had their grouses with the party. Here they discuss what's left of the Left, in a session moderated by India Today Senior Correspondent Tithi Sarkar at Mitra's home in Alipore, Kolkata.
    Tithi Sarkar
    December 13, 2012 | UPDATED 16:54 IST
    A +A -

    (Right) Ashok Mitra with Prasenjit Bose in Kolkata.(Right) Ashok Mitra with Prasenjit Bose in Kolkata.

    Ashok Mitra and Prasenjit Bose represent two generations of the Indian Left. Mitra, 84, is a well-known economist. He was finance minister in West Bengal between 1977 and 1987 and chief economic adviser to Indira Gandhi's government. Prasenjit Bose, 38, is a former convener of the CPI(M)'s research unit. He criticised the party for backing Pranab Mukherjee's candidature as President and was removed from the party. Mitra and Bose have had their grouses with the party. Here they discuss what's left of the Left, in a session moderated by India Today Senior Correspondent Tithi Sarkar at Mitra's home in Alipore, Kolkata.

    Prasenjit Bose (PB): We have been witnessing a global economic crisis for the past four years. This whole triumphalism which we saw in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union; Francis Fukuyama saying that it's the end of history. How would you look at such a prognosis today, in the light of the global crisis?

    Ashok Mitra (AM): I would say that Marx's ideas about the final stage of capitalism are about to be vindicated by the latest series of developments in the United States, as well as in Europe. The falling rate of profit we have been reading in textbooks, we have been discussing galore; now suddenly we find that what Marx had predicted has come true. The United States is trying hard. The Europeans are trying to pick lessons from what their American gurus are suggesting but to no avail. Employment is falling, the rate of growth stagnates and suddenly we find, despite what lyricists on behalf of capitalism might chant, the world is really taking a shape which was foretold by Marx hundred and fifty years ago.

    PB: I think that therefore there is definitely a return to the interests of Marxism, to the interests of not only the intellectual components of Marxism but also in a way we see popular movements which are coming up in Europe today, in countries like Spain and Greece; there have been huge protests by the trade unions, by the workers and it is leading to political changes as well. One doesn't know what exactly would be the outcome in the American elections but the Occupy Wall Street movement also caught the imagination of people across the world. But do you think that whereas Marx's analysis of capitalism as a crisis-ridden system, as a system ridden by exploitation; while that is getting definitely vindicated but are we today seeing, in the political domain, a return of the kind of revolutionary politics that we saw hundred years back or are there new trends that one has to look into?

    AM: I do admit that there is a certain qualitative difference between what had taken place throughout the major part of the 20th century and what is happening now. Certainly as a major consequence of so-called economic liberalization which others call globalization but I wouldn't call it globalization because the original concept of globalization is very much a Marxist concept. It was Marx who talked about globalization of the working class. But anyway, forget about that. What is currently happening is that there are a lot of discreet movements in various countries which are trying to articulate the grievances and discontent of the suffering masses. But the gelling element is missing. That mobilization which took place through a major part of the 20th century under the leadership of the Communist Party in country A, country B or country C, we find it fading all of a sudden. It seems that the masses are groping for an alternative formulation for expressing what they want. And this groping for the alternative where, sad to say the Communist parties have failed, is a major development which nobody can deny.

    PB: This is a very interesting point. I remember reading a major piece which you wrote for the EPW where you noted that in the past decade and a half, the biggest political upheavals against neo-liberal capitalism have happened in the continent of Latin America. But it is also a continent which has been widely commented upon, which has undergone a pink tide or a continental shift towards the Left. But whichever shade of Left rules in each of these Latin American countries; you have these slightly more moderate social democratic regimes in Brazil and Argentina and more radical regimes in Venezuela and Bolivia. But none of them are obviously being led by traditional Communist parties. Of course, you still have the Communist regime in Cuba but they also seem to be undergoing many structural changes. Now, do you think that the experience of the Soviet Union because much of the socialist regimes which came after really followed the Soviet model in the 20th century, the kind of Left that is making a comeback today is making certain departures from that Soviet model? And isn't it necessary? Don't you think so?

    AM: Let me point out one additional feature of the Latin American developments. Even in Cuba, Fidel Castro did not really belong to the Communist mainstream.

    PB: Yes!

    AM: In fact, when he started his movement from the official Communist party, he had quite a few interjections. It was only after his revolution became successful that the established Communist parties sort of surrendered their soul and body to the Castro movement. Having made that point, I would still say that the basic issue is that the Soviet Union is gone but the hangover of the system which the Soviet leadership had built persists. And much of that persistence has to do with a reluctance to try out newer experiments; with the party structure and with ways of communion between the party and the people over developments taking place here, there and everywhere. And let's not look at just the progressives in a particular country who are co-existing with arch-conservatives, even we are co-existing with outright Fascists; but that is the reality. You have to fight them and win against them. Now, if you have to fight them and win against them, you must be able, all the while, to read the mind of the masses. It's very difficult to have that kind of constant and continuous conversation with the entire range of people which constitute a nation if you stick to your old format of discipline within the old Communist party.

    PB: Not only are you making a very significant point but I think this really needs some deeper reflection. Is it only about the organisational structure or discipline or which in Communist terminology is called democratic centralism? Is it only that? Or is it the very ideological vision of socialism which was represented by the Soviet Union; in terms of a single-party state, a very top-down model of socialism which not only led to a deep alienation of the people in the Soviet Union because ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed, but in fact if you look at China today, which is very interesting, because a lot of people think that China has moved along with the times, has adjusted itself to globalization and has done a very good job of it. But one actually increasingly finds that there are very important contradictions cropping up in China. China's development path itself is giving rise to protests by the peasantry, the working class and increasingly there is a tendency to suppress dissent within China. And this is dissent arising from very genuine concerns of the people, material needs of the people. So, in one way while China has transformed its economic system to a great extent by greater marketisation, in terms of political democratization, one may actually argue that there has been a reversal. The Chinese state seems to have gone even more removed from the people. So is there a need that the entire ideological construct of socialism needs a very close look and rethinking in terms of socialism being a more democratic and open system?

    AM: I would say that the problem you have raised should constitute a part of the dialogue between the constituents of the Communist party and the masses. There should be genuine give-and-take. This is an issue we are facing in today's world; in our own country and across the world. Within our country there is a multi-party system and it is not enough for us to state to the people that yes, there is a certain issue on which we have gone wrong, we are punished by the people because we had gone wrong, we had discussed the matter within our folds and we are going to correct it ourselves. Now, the party may be satisfied but the people won't be. The people would, in fact, want to know the internal process through which we have reached a particular decision. Now this is inevitable in a multi-party system; if you want to succeed in such a system then obviously you have to take the people into confidence about the kind of discussion we are having within the party. However, I quite realise that there is the other side of the picture. That there must be a certain minimum modicum of discipline in a revolutionary party. Without discipline, a party cannot really move forward. But this is the big challenge; how we sustain the discipline and yet modulate it so that it satisfies the urges of the people.

    PB: Just building upon what you are saying; I think another important aspect of contemporary times is the undeniable revolution which has come in communication technologies. So today you find, even in developing countries like China or India, the number of Internet users, for instance. In China there are over 500 million Internet users. In India, we are rapidly progressing in terms of the number of Internet users. People's ability to express their views and the prospect of lateral communication, not just across geographical boundaries but now people in India and China are commenting and reacting freely on the cyberspace on developments in the United States, on developments in Latin America and so many other parts of the world. So, this whole concept that there are some wise men sitting at the top deciding the destiny of a movement, a nation or the people while the others are inert and passive recipients of ideas from above. Whereas there is no real proper mechanism of flow or exchange of ideas and critical opinions from bottom to top. Don't you think that this is also a very big problem and whether the Communists or Socialists of the world are alive to this?

    AM: I think your point is very well taken. In fact, the lesson should have been learnt from the Soviet experience. It was the Voice of America which was really responsible for the downfall of the Soviet system. Because you can close your frontier, you can prohibit the import of books, you can prohibit the import of cinema which is not to your liking, but you couldn't stop the Voice of America. I think we should have started worrying about this development at least 40 years earlier.

    PB: Banning, censuring, prohibiting is not the way society is meant to be. It should be a more free society.

    AM: On the other hand, we must not lose our balance either. We have to remember there are 500 thousand villages in this country. Telecommunications are only still striving to reach and we must try to evolve other forms of communication, so that we can also engage our friends in the countryside in this knowledge-developing process that is on all over the world. And for that perhaps in the interim period we need to think of alternative devices.

    PB: Since you were mentioning the villages of India, let us talk a bit about what is happening in India today. Doesn't it strike you as a remarkable fact that while global capitalism seems to be the crisis and a crisis from which it is unable to come out from at least so far? You have, in Latin America, a Left which is very much a resurgent Left. In Europe you have a situation where at least in the peripheral countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, there is a revival of Left-led mass movements. But in India, in this overall context, we have a slightly different picture. On the one hand, we find that under this present dispensation led by the Congress, the economic situation has deteriorated very sharply during the last three years, the inflation problem persists, now growth is slowing down, you have an increasingly precarious external debt situation and on the top of it all, there is a massive proliferation of corruption scandals; so it has almost become a scam-a-week government. But within this milieu, unfortunately, one doesn't see an assertive vibrant Left movement. Isn't it a paradox and why do you think this is happening in our country today?

    AM: I would say that there are two factors at work. Number one, the Communist party which was really the hope, at least the party on which the masses had bestowed their hope in India; the party was very clever in analyzing the social situation much ahead of anybody else, the party had diagnosed the caste-class dichotomy in the Indian system. But this is the irony; the Communists were able to realize the problem that is preventing the working class from coming together in the hundreds of thousands of villages. That it is because caste casts its shadow. But despite the efforts mounted over the past 60 or 70 years, the party of the working class failed to solve the deadlock and sectarian parties have taken advantage of this thing. The other factor is the tradition of hero worship which is a bane of the Indian psyche. We are respectful, we are obedient by nature. We try to take at face value what our leaders tell us. And the leaders can be quite unscrupulous and the leadership of the two major political parties has demonstrated that, yet they continue to be leaders. The masses realize that some hanky-panky is going on, the people realize that some stealing is taking place in high places and yet there is that hesitation in that moment. Will it be manners to speak up against somebody who belongs to such a holy family?

    PB: India Against Corruption is not guided by such manners any more.

    AM: Corruption has now emerged as an acceptable attribute of the system. Nobody bothers but an economic arrangement which sustains corruption cannot last very long. Because the whole machinery of running the economy will go to seed.

    PB: I see your point completely. I think that what is perhaps missing in the discussion on corruption so far - but I think it is an undeniable fact and it is bound to acquire a central place in the debates over corruption in India in the days to come - is the link between the neo-liberal economic policies being pursued by the government and the kind of corruption scandals that we are having today. From the 2G spectrum allocation, the coal block allocation to the KG basin gas scam, all these scams involve big corporates who are beneficiaries on one side and a nexus seems to have developed between these big corporates and a section of our ruling class politicians and bureaucrats. No political party seems to be immune from that. From the Congress to the BJP to most of the regional parties, all of them seem to have their hands in it. There is a systemic thing behind corruption, isn't it?

    AM: This is where the moral fiber has weakened and the alternative could have been presented by the Left but the Left is much too disorganised. This is the dilemma which is daily confronting the Indian polity that the system is getting more and more corrupt every day. There is open contact between the corporate sector and those who run the administration. You have a price and I pay the price for you. I satisfy you and you satisfy me. But even those in a position to do something are simply licking their fingers and waiting for their time to come. In such a situation, the people demand the Left to offer not only a political leadership but also a moral leadership.

    PB: Are you suggesting that there is a crisis of that within the Left today?

    AM: If the Left leadership is too bemused by the pattern of administration set up by the crooks that run the government at the moment, then of course there is no hope for the people. This is where the Left can succeed. Only when the Left sticks to their own ideology, only when the Left sticks to the Left morality. When the Left morality is gone, the masses are left in loneliness.

    PB: You are raising a very important point. One has often felt that when this whole talk about the Left changing with the times, the Left coming of age and coming to terms with globalization, this entire discourse; I think quite legitimately, fair enough, the world has changed, the Left should change but what is the exact direction in which that change should occur has been a matter of debate. Isn't it the case that within the society even today and even within the younger generation, and not only the middle class youth, the young workers, the young farmers, the young rural workers, the old virtues of the Left still have so much currency. And this moral leadership that you referred to reminds me of the fact that why is it that at a point of time when there were anti-corruption upsurges in the 70s and then definitely during Rajiv Gandhi's time, VP Singh came out of the government and there was a huge anti-corruption movement and within all those anti-corruption initiatives, especially Jyoti Basu, EMS Namboodiripad, they were also seen as the most vocal voices of dissent and disgust against corruption. Do you think that somewhere in trying to change with globalization, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water as far as the Left is concerned?

    AM: This is what is really worrying me the most now. I have heard some elements among the Left rather carelessly and I'd say a bit irresponsibly remarking on what is to be done if the system gets corrupted and saying that it's inevitable that some of this corruption is bound to seep into our own movement; but you must be careful. This is where I'd say that our leadership is facing a challenge. That if the rest of society has become corrupt, I too must join the bandwagon? This is where the Left morality has asserted itself. No, I am not part of this system, I have the Left ideology to follow and the Left ideology tells me those certain essential truths which do not alter whatever the external circumstances are. Let the rest of the parties go to dogs, we will not allow our party to dogs. That kind of bold statement can be made only by a party which has faith in the working class, which has faith in the masses. And if we have faith in the masses and you have constant communication with the masses then you can sustain yourself from what the masses have to offer to you.

    PB: Coming to West Bengal; this is the state where a Communist party has been in power for the longest period, not only in India but the entire subcontinent. This is the state that has been identified with the Communist movement, with a Left government for three decades and you have yourself been, at least for a decade, the finance minister of that government. From whatever we know, from our experience as students in Calcutta in Bengal, there was a lot of promise that the Left Front government had held out to all sections of people, to the working class, the peasantry, the youth, the unemployed. At least till the first phase of the Left Front government, it definitely happened. In fact, I was shocked today morning looking at a survey done by a newspaper. May not be a very representative sample, only 1000 urban youth - 50 per cent of who - are saying that Mamata Banerjee is more Left than the Left. From that phase, 77 to say 80s, to where we have arrived today, how do you look at this journey? Isn't it very ironical what has happened?

    AM: I think this is a tragic development. Let me make one point. We talk about degeneration within the party but I would still say that if you compare parties across the country, a Communist party has perhaps the most dedicated, honest and selfless band of workers. No other party can match what the Communist party possesses. Certainly this is true for West Bengal. Now it has been discredited because of the misdoings or I'd say the misjudgments on the part of some elements, somewhere within the party. But by and large, I'd still say that it is a very healthy party, it is a very honest party and it is a party that can be relied upon. I would always make a distinction between the party in Bengal and the leadership of the party in Bengal. I'd say that the leadership can occasionally go amiss but not the party. I am still very proud of the West Bengal party as it exists today but the only thing that it needs is perhaps a wiser brand of leadership.

    PB: Isn't it slightly more complex than that? The obvious question that will arise is; if the party is still something to be proud of in terms of its rank and file and yet obviously the leadership has gone amiss otherwise why this electoral debacle and not only that but there is a political decline and ideological confusion. So the leadership is definitely responsible to a very great extent, as you correctly mentioned. But is it because there is a problem with the structure where the rank and file has a superior opinion which does not get reflected? For instance, the obvious question is that why doesn't the leadership get democratically replaced? If there are better elements within the rank and file, why don't other people democratically come up and replace the leadership which has gone amiss? Or is it the case that in a party and especially in a party like a Communist party, the leadership has a disproportionately larger share, both in terms of the achievement as well as the failures? And the kind of wrong trends that we have been mentioning earlier, there are significant elements of those wrong tendencies which have percolated below within the Left. What I find very striking is the continuing defection from the ranks of the Left to the Trinamool Congress, despite the TMC's populist rhetoric which is very much a right-wing authoritarian reactionary force, if I may say. If such defections are taking place at the village level, it shows that today somewhere the Left ranks itself comprise elements that are not very committed to the Left ideology. Don't you think so?

    AM: This really links up the issues that we were discussing earlier; where the masses hold a certain point of view which does not get reflected or does not get transmitted to the upper echelons because of the system or discipline that is enforced. To put it a little more bluntly, where the entire process of democratic centralisation works rather odiously, there is more centralism and a shade less of democracy. This has been a problem. I would say in the case of West Bengal, I may sound a little facetious, the nature of the leadership that took control of the party in the late 50s or early 60s and thereon, the motivations were alright. But you have the party structure which breeds democratic centralism. On top of that, you have your own antecedents. So what is your antecedent? You look into the character of your leadership. It is still Bengali upper middle-class, Hindu upper middle-class with feudal roots which goes back to barely two or three generations. Emotionally and intellectually, they might have got converted to the Communist cause. But when it comes to behaviours, everyday behaviour, enforcing party discipline or presiding over party administration, there is a feudal streak that keeps recurring.

    PB: Are you making this point that the era of Bengali bhadrolok Communists is over?

    AM: All I am saying is that a compound of democratic centralism and Bengali feudalism can be a dangerous concoction, of which we have been victims in Bengal, of which the party in Bengal has been a political victim.

    PB: What you are saying are serious matters that one should reflect on. On a more serious note, our country and especially West Bengal, it needs the Left. What is the future of the workers, the peasants and the poor people without a strong Left movement in the country and especially in West Bengal? Given the state of the Left today and the role of the Left in democracy, how do you see the way forward? There is so much debate and discussion going on about the revival of the Left in terms of a comeback of the Left. But how is it to be made possible?

    AM: I would say that it would be a mistake to stop the flow of debates. Let there be more debates. Let there be more open debates and more open discussions and I'd say that one way of revival certainly would be to open up the Communist party in West Bengal. We must keep on hammering and hammering at the party; that this is our final hope, this is our only hope. The Left is the only hope for the country, the rest are all scum. We have known through our experience that they are scum. But the Left must be kept pure. In order that the Left might stay pure, it is necessary for the Left to be opened up. Those who are inside the Left movement must know what is happening in the rest of the society, they must not be kept away from the developments that are taking place. For example, those who belong to the Left, you should never tell them to read only the party journal. I'd even tell them to read the party journal but also what our enemies have been saying. You judge for yourself what we are saying is right or what our enemies are saying is right. You ensure thereby that at least some of the things that are happening in the rest of the world percolate inside the party. The party realizes that the only truth may lie with the party but occasionally the only truth needs some amendations.

    PB: The whole notion of monopoly over truth which a lot of Marxist followers across the world have linked to this notion of the vanguard party. That the Communist ideology or the Marxist ideology in its most pristine form should be reflected in a well-structured, disciplined, regimented Communist party. Across the world, especially in Latin America, this notion itself has come under serious challenge.

    AM: The real challenge is whether you can have a disciplined party without having a regimented party. And this is the issue with which we have to wrestle.

    PB: I think it's not only the question of a regimented party. I am pointing out to the fact that all across the country, you have a tremendous growth of social movements. Not only the movements of Adivasis, the rather deprived marginalised communities but also new social movements. If you see over the past 10 years, I can see the most progressive ideas at the national level. For instance, the Right to Information Act, a lot of these revelations and exposures over corruption are happening thanks to the Right to Information Act or the NREGA, the job guarantee programme. All these ideas today are being thrown up by social movements. You have today a situation where a large number of people attacked by mafia and being martyred, I think it definitely must have crossed 50 by now, are RTI activists. They are Right to Information activists and they are fighting corruption at the local level. They are the ones who are taking on the system and they are being targeted. Given the Latin American experience also, don't you think that within India there is a big need and requirement for the organised Left to have a more close dialogic relationship with these people's movements and the coming together of the political and the social Left, as they say in Latin America? Don't you think there is great scope for that? And that is the way the Left should be moving forward?

    AM: This is precisely what we are saying. You admit that you failed to solve the caste problem and since you could not offer leadership to those who have been at the receiving end of caste discrimination, others have stepped in. Make a frank admission that alright; where we have failed organisationally, they have succeeded. Let us try to come to an understanding with them. That should be one criterion. Those who are not with us are not, by definition, our enemies. That old notion should be dropped. Those who are not at the moment with us, perhaps some amongst them have things to convey which may be very much in line with the kind of ideas that we are fond of. Let us try to come to an understanding with them. Let us have an open mind. This is where that old cliché comes to my mind; the fear of freedom. We open up, we talk. We allow our workers to talk across the border to other political parties and then you should not have any mental reservations. It is important at this juncture. Let us admit that we have failed in certain directions and we are suffering the consequences of that failure. But in order to make up ground, in order to make up time, it is necessary that we join hands across the frontier. But we certainly have to be discriminating. There have been many unfortunate developments in the whole concept of building a third front and we have tried and tried and we have relied on people who are not reliable.

    PB: Finally looking at the current political situation, one thing which strikes to somebody who is a Leftist or who is a sympathizer of the Left, that while you find new forces like this India Against Corruption and they are taking up the corruption issue, they are mobilizing people and they are getting substantive response in Delhi, in many other parts of the country. On the other hand, one finds that the role of the Left in building up struggles and movements is negligent, especially at a time when the government is so discredited, there is so much of popular anger and there are increasing oil prices today, LPG prices tomorrow; there is so much of anger, too. Don't you think that there is an over-emphasis of the Left on parliamentary tactics which are not working? Today there is the effort to support somebody to create a wedge between Congress and Trinamool; tomorrow it is going with Mulayam Singh Yadav and then getting ditched by Mulayam Singh Yadav, again. This has happened twice already. Rather than that, shouldn't there be more emphasis on going to the people, on taking up issues, building up mass movements. To put it simply, I would have, for instance, loved to see the Left playing the role India Against Corruption is playing today. Why do you think that is happening?

    AM: Perhaps on behalf of the Left, the point will be made that they do get involved in movements; for example the Dalits and the Adivasis but they do not get enough coverage in the corporate press. Whereas if you are a retired army general, you talk loudly and need a platform against corruption, then you get very wide publicity. And not all the shouting is necessarily for a genuine cause. This certainly is a point of view that the Left can make. But on the other hand, it is equally true that perhaps there has been a lot of waste of energy on the part of the Left in trying to develop alliances at the super-structure level rather than at the level of the base. But I would keep on reverting to what I still consider to be the major issue. And that is the issue of ideology; that in these very uncertain times the Left has to be not only ideologically pure but also morally pure. And if there is a certain deficit on either, the Left will be under shadow.

    PB: So basically what you are suggesting is not only an ideologically assertive Left but a more open and democratic Left and a Left which engages with various forms of social movements against oppression.

    AM: A Left which people would believe is, by definition, like Caesar's wife.

    PB: Which is above suspicion! Thank you so much, Sir. This has been a very lively discussion.

    .
  • India Today | 209.249.223.66 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:৩৯369520
  • অশোক মিত্রের বয়স কম বলেছে

    The Left is the only hope for the country, the rest are all scum: Ashok Mitra in conversation with Prasenjit Bose

    Ashok Mitra and Prasenjit Bose represent two generations of the Indian Left. Mitra, 84, is a well-known economist. He was finance minister in West Bengal between 1977 and 1987 and chief economic adviser to Indira Gandhi's government. Prasenjit Bose, 38, is a former convener of the CPI(M)'s research unit. He criticised the party for backing Pranab Mukherjee's candidature as President and was removed from the party. Mitra and Bose have had their grouses with the party. Here they discuss what's left of the Left, in a session moderated by India Today Senior Correspondent Tithi Sarkar at Mitra's home in Alipore, Kolkata.
    Tithi Sarkar
    December 13, 2012 | UPDATED 16:54 IST
    A +A -

    (Right) Ashok Mitra with Prasenjit Bose in Kolkata.(Right) Ashok Mitra with Prasenjit Bose in Kolkata.

    Ashok Mitra and Prasenjit Bose represent two generations of the Indian Left. Mitra, 84, is a well-known economist. He was finance minister in West Bengal between 1977 and 1987 and chief economic adviser to Indira Gandhi's government. Prasenjit Bose, 38, is a former convener of the CPI(M)'s research unit. He criticised the party for backing Pranab Mukherjee's candidature as President and was removed from the party. Mitra and Bose have had their grouses with the party. Here they discuss what's left of the Left, in a session moderated by India Today Senior Correspondent Tithi Sarkar at Mitra's home in Alipore, Kolkata.

    Prasenjit Bose (PB): We have been witnessing a global economic crisis for the past four years. This whole triumphalism which we saw in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union; Francis Fukuyama saying that it's the end of history. How would you look at such a prognosis today, in the light of the global crisis?

    Ashok Mitra (AM): I would say that Marx's ideas about the final stage of capitalism are about to be vindicated by the latest series of developments in the United States, as well as in Europe. The falling rate of profit we have been reading in textbooks, we have been discussing galore; now suddenly we find that what Marx had predicted has come true. The United States is trying hard. The Europeans are trying to pick lessons from what their American gurus are suggesting but to no avail. Employment is falling, the rate of growth stagnates and suddenly we find, despite what lyricists on behalf of capitalism might chant, the world is really taking a shape which was foretold by Marx hundred and fifty years ago.

    PB: I think that therefore there is definitely a return to the interests of Marxism, to the interests of not only the intellectual components of Marxism but also in a way we see popular movements which are coming up in Europe today, in countries like Spain and Greece; there have been huge protests by the trade unions, by the workers and it is leading to political changes as well. One doesn't know what exactly would be the outcome in the American elections but the Occupy Wall Street movement also caught the imagination of people across the world. But do you think that whereas Marx's analysis of capitalism as a crisis-ridden system, as a system ridden by exploitation; while that is getting definitely vindicated but are we today seeing, in the political domain, a return of the kind of revolutionary politics that we saw hundred years back or are there new trends that one has to look into?

    AM: I do admit that there is a certain qualitative difference between what had taken place throughout the major part of the 20th century and what is happening now. Certainly as a major consequence of so-called economic liberalization which others call globalization but I wouldn't call it globalization because the original concept of globalization is very much a Marxist concept. It was Marx who talked about globalization of the working class. But anyway, forget about that. What is currently happening is that there are a lot of discreet movements in various countries which are trying to articulate the grievances and discontent of the suffering masses. But the gelling element is missing. That mobilization which took place through a major part of the 20th century under the leadership of the Communist Party in country A, country B or country C, we find it fading all of a sudden. It seems that the masses are groping for an alternative formulation for expressing what they want. And this groping for the alternative where, sad to say the Communist parties have failed, is a major development which nobody can deny.

    PB: This is a very interesting point. I remember reading a major piece which you wrote for the EPW where you noted that in the past decade and a half, the biggest political upheavals against neo-liberal capitalism have happened in the continent of Latin America. But it is also a continent which has been widely commented upon, which has undergone a pink tide or a continental shift towards the Left. But whichever shade of Left rules in each of these Latin American countries; you have these slightly more moderate social democratic regimes in Brazil and Argentina and more radical regimes in Venezuela and Bolivia. But none of them are obviously being led by traditional Communist parties. Of course, you still have the Communist regime in Cuba but they also seem to be undergoing many structural changes. Now, do you think that the experience of the Soviet Union because much of the socialist regimes which came after really followed the Soviet model in the 20th century, the kind of Left that is making a comeback today is making certain departures from that Soviet model? And isn't it necessary? Don't you think so?

    AM: Let me point out one additional feature of the Latin American developments. Even in Cuba, Fidel Castro did not really belong to the Communist mainstream.

    PB: Yes!

    AM: In fact, when he started his movement from the official Communist party, he had quite a few interjections. It was only after his revolution became successful that the established Communist parties sort of surrendered their soul and body to the Castro movement. Having made that point, I would still say that the basic issue is that the Soviet Union is gone but the hangover of the system which the Soviet leadership had built persists. And much of that persistence has to do with a reluctance to try out newer experiments; with the party structure and with ways of communion between the party and the people over developments taking place here, there and everywhere. And let's not look at just the progressives in a particular country who are co-existing with arch-conservatives, even we are co-existing with outright Fascists; but that is the reality. You have to fight them and win against them. Now, if you have to fight them and win against them, you must be able, all the while, to read the mind of the masses. It's very difficult to have that kind of constant and continuous conversation with the entire range of people which constitute a nation if you stick to your old format of discipline within the old Communist party.

    PB: Not only are you making a very significant point but I think this really needs some deeper reflection. Is it only about the organisational structure or discipline or which in Communist terminology is called democratic centralism? Is it only that? Or is it the very ideological vision of socialism which was represented by the Soviet Union; in terms of a single-party state, a very top-down model of socialism which not only led to a deep alienation of the people in the Soviet Union because ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed, but in fact if you look at China today, which is very interesting, because a lot of people think that China has moved along with the times, has adjusted itself to globalization and has done a very good job of it. But one actually increasingly finds that there are very important contradictions cropping up in China. China's development path itself is giving rise to protests by the peasantry, the working class and increasingly there is a tendency to suppress dissent within China. And this is dissent arising from very genuine concerns of the people, material needs of the people. So, in one way while China has transformed its economic system to a great extent by greater marketisation, in terms of political democratization, one may actually argue that there has been a reversal. The Chinese state seems to have gone even more removed from the people. So is there a need that the entire ideological construct of socialism needs a very close look and rethinking in terms of socialism being a more democratic and open system?

    AM: I would say that the problem you have raised should constitute a part of the dialogue between the constituents of the Communist party and the masses. There should be genuine give-and-take. This is an issue we are facing in today's world; in our own country and across the world. Within our country there is a multi-party system and it is not enough for us to state to the people that yes, there is a certain issue on which we have gone wrong, we are punished by the people because we had gone wrong, we had discussed the matter within our folds and we are going to correct it ourselves. Now, the party may be satisfied but the people won't be. The people would, in fact, want to know the internal process through which we have reached a particular decision. Now this is inevitable in a multi-party system; if you want to succeed in such a system then obviously you have to take the people into confidence about the kind of discussion we are having within the party. However, I quite realise that there is the other side of the picture. That there must be a certain minimum modicum of discipline in a revolutionary party. Without discipline, a party cannot really move forward. But this is the big challenge; how we sustain the discipline and yet modulate it so that it satisfies the urges of the people.

    PB: Just building upon what you are saying; I think another important aspect of contemporary times is the undeniable revolution which has come in communication technologies. So today you find, even in developing countries like China or India, the number of Internet users, for instance. In China there are over 500 million Internet users. In India, we are rapidly progressing in terms of the number of Internet users. People's ability to express their views and the prospect of lateral communication, not just across geographical boundaries but now people in India and China are commenting and reacting freely on the cyberspace on developments in the United States, on developments in Latin America and so many other parts of the world. So, this whole concept that there are some wise men sitting at the top deciding the destiny of a movement, a nation or the people while the others are inert and passive recipients of ideas from above. Whereas there is no real proper mechanism of flow or exchange of ideas and critical opinions from bottom to top. Don't you think that this is also a very big problem and whether the Communists or Socialists of the world are alive to this?

    AM: I think your point is very well taken. In fact, the lesson should have been learnt from the Soviet experience. It was the Voice of America which was really responsible for the downfall of the Soviet system. Because you can close your frontier, you can prohibit the import of books, you can prohibit the import of cinema which is not to your liking, but you couldn't stop the Voice of America. I think we should have started worrying about this development at least 40 years earlier.

    PB: Banning, censuring, prohibiting is not the way society is meant to be. It should be a more free society.

    AM: On the other hand, we must not lose our balance either. We have to remember there are 500 thousand villages in this country. Telecommunications are only still striving to reach and we must try to evolve other forms of communication, so that we can also engage our friends in the countryside in this knowledge-developing process that is on all over the world. And for that perhaps in the interim period we need to think of alternative devices.

    PB: Since you were mentioning the villages of India, let us talk a bit about what is happening in India today. Doesn't it strike you as a remarkable fact that while global capitalism seems to be the crisis and a crisis from which it is unable to come out from at least so far? You have, in Latin America, a Left which is very much a resurgent Left. In Europe you have a situation where at least in the peripheral countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, there is a revival of Left-led mass movements. But in India, in this overall context, we have a slightly different picture. On the one hand, we find that under this present dispensation led by the Congress, the economic situation has deteriorated very sharply during the last three years, the inflation problem persists, now growth is slowing down, you have an increasingly precarious external debt situation and on the top of it all, there is a massive proliferation of corruption scandals; so it has almost become a scam-a-week government. But within this milieu, unfortunately, one doesn't see an assertive vibrant Left movement. Isn't it a paradox and why do you think this is happening in our country today?

    AM: I would say that there are two factors at work. Number one, the Communist party which was really the hope, at least the party on which the masses had bestowed their hope in India; the party was very clever in analyzing the social situation much ahead of anybody else, the party had diagnosed the caste-class dichotomy in the Indian system. But this is the irony; the Communists were able to realize the problem that is preventing the working class from coming together in the hundreds of thousands of villages. That it is because caste casts its shadow. But despite the efforts mounted over the past 60 or 70 years, the party of the working class failed to solve the deadlock and sectarian parties have taken advantage of this thing. The other factor is the tradition of hero worship which is a bane of the Indian psyche. We are respectful, we are obedient by nature. We try to take at face value what our leaders tell us. And the leaders can be quite unscrupulous and the leadership of the two major political parties has demonstrated that, yet they continue to be leaders. The masses realize that some hanky-panky is going on, the people realize that some stealing is taking place in high places and yet there is that hesitation in that moment. Will it be manners to speak up against somebody who belongs to such a holy family?

    PB: India Against Corruption is not guided by such manners any more.

    AM: Corruption has now emerged as an acceptable attribute of the system. Nobody bothers but an economic arrangement which sustains corruption cannot last very long. Because the whole machinery of running the economy will go to seed.

    PB: I see your point completely. I think that what is perhaps missing in the discussion on corruption so far - but I think it is an undeniable fact and it is bound to acquire a central place in the debates over corruption in India in the days to come - is the link between the neo-liberal economic policies being pursued by the government and the kind of corruption scandals that we are having today. From the 2G spectrum allocation, the coal block allocation to the KG basin gas scam, all these scams involve big corporates who are beneficiaries on one side and a nexus seems to have developed between these big corporates and a section of our ruling class politicians and bureaucrats. No political party seems to be immune from that. From the Congress to the BJP to most of the regional parties, all of them seem to have their hands in it. There is a systemic thing behind corruption, isn't it?

    AM: This is where the moral fiber has weakened and the alternative could have been presented by the Left but the Left is much too disorganised. This is the dilemma which is daily confronting the Indian polity that the system is getting more and more corrupt every day. There is open contact between the corporate sector and those who run the administration. You have a price and I pay the price for you. I satisfy you and you satisfy me. But even those in a position to do something are simply licking their fingers and waiting for their time to come. In such a situation, the people demand the Left to offer not only a political leadership but also a moral leadership.

    PB: Are you suggesting that there is a crisis of that within the Left today?

    AM: If the Left leadership is too bemused by the pattern of administration set up by the crooks that run the government at the moment, then of course there is no hope for the people. This is where the Left can succeed. Only when the Left sticks to their own ideology, only when the Left sticks to the Left morality. When the Left morality is gone, the masses are left in loneliness.

    PB: You are raising a very important point. One has often felt that when this whole talk about the Left changing with the times, the Left coming of age and coming to terms with globalization, this entire discourse; I think quite legitimately, fair enough, the world has changed, the Left should change but what is the exact direction in which that change should occur has been a matter of debate. Isn't it the case that within the society even today and even within the younger generation, and not only the middle class youth, the young workers, the young farmers, the young rural workers, the old virtues of the Left still have so much currency. And this moral leadership that you referred to reminds me of the fact that why is it that at a point of time when there were anti-corruption upsurges in the 70s and then definitely during Rajiv Gandhi's time, VP Singh came out of the government and there was a huge anti-corruption movement and within all those anti-corruption initiatives, especially Jyoti Basu, EMS Namboodiripad, they were also seen as the most vocal voices of dissent and disgust against corruption. Do you think that somewhere in trying to change with globalization, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water as far as the Left is concerned?

    AM: This is what is really worrying me the most now. I have heard some elements among the Left rather carelessly and I'd say a bit irresponsibly remarking on what is to be done if the system gets corrupted and saying that it's inevitable that some of this corruption is bound to seep into our own movement; but you must be careful. This is where I'd say that our leadership is facing a challenge. That if the rest of society has become corrupt, I too must join the bandwagon? This is where the Left morality has asserted itself. No, I am not part of this system, I have the Left ideology to follow and the Left ideology tells me those certain essential truths which do not alter whatever the external circumstances are. Let the rest of the parties go to dogs, we will not allow our party to dogs. That kind of bold statement can be made only by a party which has faith in the working class, which has faith in the masses. And if we have faith in the masses and you have constant communication with the masses then you can sustain yourself from what the masses have to offer to you.

    PB: Coming to West Bengal; this is the state where a Communist party has been in power for the longest period, not only in India but the entire subcontinent. This is the state that has been identified with the Communist movement, with a Left government for three decades and you have yourself been, at least for a decade, the finance minister of that government. From whatever we know, from our experience as students in Calcutta in Bengal, there was a lot of promise that the Left Front government had held out to all sections of people, to the working class, the peasantry, the youth, the unemployed. At least till the first phase of the Left Front government, it definitely happened. In fact, I was shocked today morning looking at a survey done by a newspaper. May not be a very representative sample, only 1000 urban youth - 50 per cent of who - are saying that Mamata Banerjee is more Left than the Left. From that phase, 77 to say 80s, to where we have arrived today, how do you look at this journey? Isn't it very ironical what has happened?

    AM: I think this is a tragic development. Let me make one point. We talk about degeneration within the party but I would still say that if you compare parties across the country, a Communist party has perhaps the most dedicated, honest and selfless band of workers. No other party can match what the Communist party possesses. Certainly this is true for West Bengal. Now it has been discredited because of the misdoings or I'd say the misjudgments on the part of some elements, somewhere within the party. But by and large, I'd still say that it is a very healthy party, it is a very honest party and it is a party that can be relied upon. I would always make a distinction between the party in Bengal and the leadership of the party in Bengal. I'd say that the leadership can occasionally go amiss but not the party. I am still very proud of the West Bengal party as it exists today but the only thing that it needs is perhaps a wiser brand of leadership.

    PB: Isn't it slightly more complex than that? The obvious question that will arise is; if the party is still something to be proud of in terms of its rank and file and yet obviously the leadership has gone amiss otherwise why this electoral debacle and not only that but there is a political decline and ideological confusion. So the leadership is definitely responsible to a very great extent, as you correctly mentioned. But is it because there is a problem with the structure where the rank and file has a superior opinion which does not get reflected? For instance, the obvious question is that why doesn't the leadership get democratically replaced? If there are better elements within the rank and file, why don't other people democratically come up and replace the leadership which has gone amiss? Or is it the case that in a party and especially in a party like a Communist party, the leadership has a disproportionately larger share, both in terms of the achievement as well as the failures? And the kind of wrong trends that we have been mentioning earlier, there are significant elements of those wrong tendencies which have percolated below within the Left. What I find very striking is the continuing defection from the ranks of the Left to the Trinamool Congress, despite the TMC's populist rhetoric which is very much a right-wing authoritarian reactionary force, if I may say. If such defections are taking place at the village level, it shows that today somewhere the Left ranks itself comprise elements that are not very committed to the Left ideology. Don't you think so?

    AM: This really links up the issues that we were discussing earlier; where the masses hold a certain point of view which does not get reflected or does not get transmitted to the upper echelons because of the system or discipline that is enforced. To put it a little more bluntly, where the entire process of democratic centralisation works rather odiously, there is more centralism and a shade less of democracy. This has been a problem. I would say in the case of West Bengal, I may sound a little facetious, the nature of the leadership that took control of the party in the late 50s or early 60s and thereon, the motivations were alright. But you have the party structure which breeds democratic centralism. On top of that, you have your own antecedents. So what is your antecedent? You look into the character of your leadership. It is still Bengali upper middle-class, Hindu upper middle-class with feudal roots which goes back to barely two or three generations. Emotionally and intellectually, they might have got converted to the Communist cause. But when it comes to behaviours, everyday behaviour, enforcing party discipline or presiding over party administration, there is a feudal streak that keeps recurring.

    PB: Are you making this point that the era of Bengali bhadrolok Communists is over?

    AM: All I am saying is that a compound of democratic centralism and Bengali feudalism can be a dangerous concoction, of which we have been victims in Bengal, of which the party in Bengal has been a political victim.

    PB: What you are saying are serious matters that one should reflect on. On a more serious note, our country and especially West Bengal, it needs the Left. What is the future of the workers, the peasants and the poor people without a strong Left movement in the country and especially in West Bengal? Given the state of the Left today and the role of the Left in democracy, how do you see the way forward? There is so much debate and discussion going on about the revival of the Left in terms of a comeback of the Left. But how is it to be made possible?

    AM: I would say that it would be a mistake to stop the flow of debates. Let there be more debates. Let there be more open debates and more open discussions and I'd say that one way of revival certainly would be to open up the Communist party in West Bengal. We must keep on hammering and hammering at the party; that this is our final hope, this is our only hope. The Left is the only hope for the country, the rest are all scum. We have known through our experience that they are scum. But the Left must be kept pure. In order that the Left might stay pure, it is necessary for the Left to be opened up. Those who are inside the Left movement must know what is happening in the rest of the society, they must not be kept away from the developments that are taking place. For example, those who belong to the Left, you should never tell them to read only the party journal. I'd even tell them to read the party journal but also what our enemies have been saying. You judge for yourself what we are saying is right or what our enemies are saying is right. You ensure thereby that at least some of the things that are happening in the rest of the world percolate inside the party. The party realizes that the only truth may lie with the party but occasionally the only truth needs some amendations.

    PB: The whole notion of monopoly over truth which a lot of Marxist followers across the world have linked to this notion of the vanguard party. That the Communist ideology or the Marxist ideology in its most pristine form should be reflected in a well-structured, disciplined, regimented Communist party. Across the world, especially in Latin America, this notion itself has come under serious challenge.

    AM: The real challenge is whether you can have a disciplined party without having a regimented party. And this is the issue with which we have to wrestle.

    PB: I think it's not only the question of a regimented party. I am pointing out to the fact that all across the country, you have a tremendous growth of social movements. Not only the movements of Adivasis, the rather deprived marginalised communities but also new social movements. If you see over the past 10 years, I can see the most progressive ideas at the national level. For instance, the Right to Information Act, a lot of these revelations and exposures over corruption are happening thanks to the Right to Information Act or the NREGA, the job guarantee programme. All these ideas today are being thrown up by social movements. You have today a situation where a large number of people attacked by mafia and being martyred, I think it definitely must have crossed 50 by now, are RTI activists. They are Right to Information activists and they are fighting corruption at the local level. They are the ones who are taking on the system and they are being targeted. Given the Latin American experience also, don't you think that within India there is a big need and requirement for the organised Left to have a more close dialogic relationship with these people's movements and the coming together of the political and the social Left, as they say in Latin America? Don't you think there is great scope for that? And that is the way the Left should be moving forward?

    AM: This is precisely what we are saying. You admit that you failed to solve the caste problem and since you could not offer leadership to those who have been at the receiving end of caste discrimination, others have stepped in. Make a frank admission that alright; where we have failed organisationally, they have succeeded. Let us try to come to an understanding with them. That should be one criterion. Those who are not with us are not, by definition, our enemies. That old notion should be dropped. Those who are not at the moment with us, perhaps some amongst them have things to convey which may be very much in line with the kind of ideas that we are fond of. Let us try to come to an understanding with them. Let us have an open mind. This is where that old cliché comes to my mind; the fear of freedom. We open up, we talk. We allow our workers to talk across the border to other political parties and then you should not have any mental reservations. It is important at this juncture. Let us admit that we have failed in certain directions and we are suffering the consequences of that failure. But in order to make up ground, in order to make up time, it is necessary that we join hands across the frontier. But we certainly have to be discriminating. There have been many unfortunate developments in the whole concept of building a third front and we have tried and tried and we have relied on people who are not reliable.

    PB: Finally looking at the current political situation, one thing which strikes to somebody who is a Leftist or who is a sympathizer of the Left, that while you find new forces like this India Against Corruption and they are taking up the corruption issue, they are mobilizing people and they are getting substantive response in Delhi, in many other parts of the country. On the other hand, one finds that the role of the Left in building up struggles and movements is negligent, especially at a time when the government is so discredited, there is so much of popular anger and there are increasing oil prices today, LPG prices tomorrow; there is so much of anger, too. Don't you think that there is an over-emphasis of the Left on parliamentary tactics which are not working? Today there is the effort to support somebody to create a wedge between Congress and Trinamool; tomorrow it is going with Mulayam Singh Yadav and then getting ditched by Mulayam Singh Yadav, again. This has happened twice already. Rather than that, shouldn't there be more emphasis on going to the people, on taking up issues, building up mass movements. To put it simply, I would have, for instance, loved to see the Left playing the role India Against Corruption is playing today. Why do you think that is happening?

    AM: Perhaps on behalf of the Left, the point will be made that they do get involved in movements; for example the Dalits and the Adivasis but they do not get enough coverage in the corporate press. Whereas if you are a retired army general, you talk loudly and need a platform against corruption, then you get very wide publicity. And not all the shouting is necessarily for a genuine cause. This certainly is a point of view that the Left can make. But on the other hand, it is equally true that perhaps there has been a lot of waste of energy on the part of the Left in trying to develop alliances at the super-structure level rather than at the level of the base. But I would keep on reverting to what I still consider to be the major issue. And that is the issue of ideology; that in these very uncertain times the Left has to be not only ideologically pure but also morally pure. And if there is a certain deficit on either, the Left will be under shadow.

    PB: So basically what you are suggesting is not only an ideologically assertive Left but a more open and democratic Left and a Left which engages with various forms of social movements against oppression.

    AM: A Left which people would believe is, by definition, like Caesar's wife.

    PB: Which is above suspicion! Thank you so much, Sir. This has been a very lively discussion.

    .
  • sm | 52.110.167.252 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:৪৭369521
  • এই সাতশো পাতার দলিল টা কে নামালো!বুড়ো আঙ্গুল টনটন করছে এখনো।

    পিটি,ঋতব্রত দামি পেন ,আইফোন ইত্যাদি ব্যবহার করে ঠিক করেছে বলে ক দিন আগে চেঁচিয়ে ছিলেন।কারণ সংসদ থেকে তারা ব্যক্তিগত জিনিস পত্র কেনার জন্য অনুদান পান।
    আজ ঋতব্রত আপনার কৃপা দৃষ্টি থেকে বঞ্চিত কেন?
    পার্টির গোয়ার্তুমির বিরুদ্ধে আপনার ই বেশি সোচ্চার হওয়া উচিত।
  • PT | 213.110.242.6 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৮:১৭369522
  • সোশাল মিডিয়াতে ঋতব্রতর চরিত্রহননের ও ব্যক্তি আক্রমণের বিরোধীতা করেছিল পিটি এবং এখনো করছে।

    কিন্তু ঋতব্রত, আবাপ আর রিপাবলিক টিভিতে নির্বোধের মত কিছু কথাবর্তা বলেছেন। তার মধ্যে প্রধানতম হচ্ছে সেলিমের ধর্মীয় পরিচয় নিয়ে অত্যন্ত কুরুচিকর মন্তব্য। আর তার পরের বেশীর ভাগ বক্তব্যই incoherent বলে মনে হয়েছে। ঋতব্রত ইয়েচুরি বনাম কারাত, কিংবা বাংলার নেতাদের মতভেদ নিয়ে বিবাদ সৃষ্টির যে চেষ্টাটি করেছিলেন সেটি একেবারেই ফলপ্রসূ হয়নি।

    ঋতব্রত আরো যত incoherent কথা কথা বলবেন ততই তাঁর সঙ্গে প্রসেনজিৎ এবং অতি অবশ্যই সফির ফারাকটা দৃশ্যমান হয়ে উঠবে। তবে তিনি মামলা করুন সেটা আমি চাই। তাহলে হয়ত দুপক্ষেরই অনেক না জানা কথা প্রকাশ্যে আসবে। আর তাতে ঋতব্রতর আদৌ বিশেষ সুবিধে হবে কিনা তাতে আমার ঘোর সংশয় আছে।
  • sm | 52.110.184.208 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২১:২৯369523
  • সবচেয়ে বেশি চরিত্র হনন তো করলো পার্টি। প্রথমে প্রায় ৫০ অধিক তার পর ঊনিশজন মহিলার অভিযোগে অভিযুক্ত বলে দাবি করেছে পার্টি। ব্যক্তিগত পারিবারিক কলহের কথাও মিডিয়ায় তুলে ধরেছে পার্টি।
    বিলাস বহুল জীবন যাপনের অভিযোগ ও করেছে পার্টি।
    সংসদের প্রাপ্য বলে ডিফেন্ড করে নি পার্টি।
    সেলিম সম্পর্কে ঋতব্রত তাঁর ধারণার কথা বলেছে। ভুল হতে পারে। সেটা তো পার্টি ই যুক্তি দিয়ে ডিফেন্ড করবে।
    আপনি তো পার্টি কে আগলেই চলেছেন।
  • PT | 213.110.242.24 | ১৯ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২১:৪৭369524
  • কার পার্টি, কে আগলায়?
    আবাপ ও রিপাব্লিক টিভির ছ্ত্রছায়া থেকে বেরিয়ে মামলা করবেন ঋতব্রত আশা করছি...... তারপরে নাহয় তক্ক হবে?
  • তাপস | 57.15.3.178 | ২২ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৭:১৭369525
  • হ্যাঁ, সি এম ঠিকই বলেছেন। আমার মূল প্রশ্নের সাথে ঋতব্রত লোকটির সম্পর্ক নেই। অনেকদিন আগে কোন একটা টইয়ে এই জীবনযাপনের মানকে কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির সভ্যপদের একমাত্র নির্ধারক মান হিসেবে ধরে নেওয়ার চালু পদ্ধতি নিয়ে প্রশ্ন তুলেছিলাম। সে প্রশ্ন আজও বিদ্যমান।
  • cm | 127.247.99.96 | ২২ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৯:১৮369527
  • এবং মনে হয় আমরা ও প্রশ্নটি নিয়ে তেমন কথা বলতে চাইনা। একমাত্র h কিছু বলেছেন তবে মনে হল ওনার আলোচনার পরিধি একটু বিস্তৃত ছিল।
  • ন্যাড়া | 117.77.109.58 | ২৩ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১০:৫৫369528
  • পিটি বলিলেন, "কাগজে ছাপানো কোন খবর থেকেই কোন সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া মুশকিল।" ধরণী লজ্জায় জিভ কাটিয়া বলিল, "আগে বলতে হত।" এই বলিয়া ধরণী দ্বিধান্বিত হইল। হইবার আগে আরও বলিল, "টি ছোকরার বয়েসকালে পিটি হইবার সব গুণই বিদ্যমান।"
  • PT | 213.110.242.5 | ২৩ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১২:০১369529
  • ইহা শুনিয়া উপরের আকাশ কৌতুকে বেগুণীবর্ণ হইয়া বলিল, "অহো ধরণী , তোর ন্যাকাপনা দেখিয়া গা জ্বলিয়া যাইতেছে। অতীতে এইসব অতি-পন্ডিতেরা ছাপানো খবরের চরিত্র বিবেচনা না করিয়াই মিথ্যাচারকে সমর্থন জানাইয়াছে। এখনো তাহারা নিজেদের চরিত্র সংশোধন করে নাই। কেমন নির্লজ্জের মত প্রেক্ষিত বাদ দিয়াই অন্যের মন্তব্য উদ্ধৃত করিতেছে।"
  • T | 233.227.37.48 | ২৩ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১২:১৫369530
  • যাব্বাঁড়া।
  • প্রেক্ষিত | 114.223.123.98 | ২৩ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১২:৪৮369531
  • মার্ক্স কমোডিটি ফেটিশিজমকে কী বলেছিলেন?
  • সিকি | ২৪ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৪:২৭369533
  • টি! ভাষা সন্ত্রাস চালাচ্ছিস!! খালিপেটে আমসত্ত্ব খেলে এইই হয়। কদলী দ'লে খেতে হত।
  • de | 24.139.119.171 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৪:১৬369535
  • আরেকজন সংশয়ী!
  • de | 24.139.119.171 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৪:২১369536
  • sm | 52.110.155.203 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৮:৩০369538
  • এই প্রতিবেদন টুকু পড়ে পিটির কি ভিউজ তৈয়ারি হলো?উনি এতদিন সোশ্যাল মিডিয়ার ষষ্ঠী পুজো করে এসেছেন কারণ তারা ব্যক্তি ঋতব্রতর চরিত্র হনন করেছে। কিন্তু পার্টির হোমরা চোমরা রা কি করলো?তাঁদের সম্পর্কে কি অভিমত?
    তবে কনক্লুশন হলো ঋতব্রতর উচিত ছিল নেপাল -ভুটানের লাইন নেওয়া।কয়েক বছর পর পার্টি ঘরের ছেলেকে কেমন জড়িয়ে ধরে ফিরিয়ে নিতো!
    এন্ড দে লিভড হ্যাপিলি এভার আফটার!
  • rito | 113.246.37.83 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৮:৩১369539
  • বাঙালি কমরেডকে তো না হয় "অকমিউনিস্ট সুলভ" জীবনযাত্রার জন্যে বহিস্কার করা হলো , কিন্তু কেরালার যে আগমার্কা কমিউনিস্ট মন্ত্রী মন্দিরে গিয়ে পুজো দিলো ছেলেকে সোনার মুকুট পরিয়ে, প্রণামী দান করলো তার কি ব্যবস্থা হলো ?
    http://www.firstpost.com/politics/in-communist-kerala-ministers-visit-to-thrissur-temple-sparks-off-debate-on-religion-4046521.html
  • sm | 52.110.155.203 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ১৮:৩৬369540
  • ওরে বাপ্পা!উটি হলো গিয়ে কেরালা!উটার নিয়ম আলাদা বটেক!ওখানে পুজো দিলে দোষ নাই।
  • modi | 97.118.115.176 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২০:০০369541
  • ক্যামেরায় ঘুষ খেলে দোষ নেই, পুজো দিলে দোষ। এই ডাক্তারকেই কি অসুর সাজিয়েছিল?
  • sm | 52.110.164.119 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২০:১৬369542
  • ক্যামেরার সামনে ঘুষের প্রমান হয়নি এখনো আদালতে।সব কিছু তো আর জ্যোতি বাবুর বন্ধুর দ্বারা স্পনসর করা বিলেত ভ্রমনের মতো পোষ্কার নয়।
    তা,একটা সামান্যই নিউজ লিংকের জন্য মোদী বাবুর এতো রাগ কেন?
  • Ishan | 180.202.22.2 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২০:২২369543
  • সিপিএমের অফিশিয়াল বক্তব্য পড়লাম। চারটে অভিযোগ ছিল দেখলামঃ

    1) continuous leakage of internal party matters and discussions to the media;
    2) moral degeneration in relation to women.
    3) serious inconsistencies between his income and expenditure;
    4) lavish life-style incompatible with the member of the Party.

    প্রথমটা বাদে বাকি প্রত্যেকটা নিয়েই টিভিতে ঋত কিছু বক্তব্য পেশ করেছেন। মহিলা সংক্রান্ত অভিযোগ নিয়ে বলেছেন, অভিযোগ কী ছিল তাঁকে জানানো হয়নি। অভিযোগকারীদের পরিচয় জানানো হয়নি। প্রশ্নও করতে দেওয়া হয়নি।
    ব্যাঙ্ক স্টেটমেন্ট নিয়ে বলেছেন, ওটা অনৈতিক ভাবে জোগাড় করা হয়েছিল, এবং ও থেকে কিচু পাওয়াও যায়নি। আইফোন প্রসঙ্গে বলেছেন, সিপিএমের সব সাংসদই অ্যাপল প্রোডাক্ট ব্যবহার করেন।

    সিপিএম নিজেদের ব্যাপার ক্লারিফাই করবে কিনা সে তাদের ব্যাপার। তবে আপাতত আমার ঋতর কথা বেশ বিশ্বাসযোগ্য লাগছে। যদি এগুলো সত্যিই হয়, তো ফেয়ার ট্রায়াল একেবারেই হয়েছে বলে মনে হচ্ছেনা। আমি ঋতকে একেবারেই পছ্হন্দ করিনা। নানা কারণে। সেই আমারই যদি এমন লাগে, তো অন্য অনেকের লাগার কথা।
  • cm | 127.247.98.208 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২১:২৫369544
  • ঋতব্রত সব চেয়ে ভয়ঙ্কর কাজটি করেছেন ঐ ইন্টারভিউতে।
  • SS | 160.148.14.151 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২১:৪৩369545
  • ব্যাংক অ্যাকাউন্ট কি ঋতব্রতর ব্যাক্তিগত অ্যাকাউন্ট নাকি পার্টির? ব্যাক্তিগত হলে ঋতব্রতর উচিৎ ব্যাংকের বিরুদ্ধে মামলা করা। ব্যাক্তিগত ব্যাংক অ্যাকাউন্ট কনফিডেনশিয়াল। একমাত্র ল এনফোর্সমেন্ট ছাড়া আর কারোর কাছে ব্যাংক সেই অ্যাকাউন্ট ইনফর্মেশান কনসেন্ট ছাড়া প্রকাশ করতে পারে না।
  • Ishan | 180.202.22.2 | ২৫ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ২২:৫৭369546
  • ব্যক্তিগত। ঋত দাবী করেছেন, কমিশনে গিয়ে দেখেন, ব্যক্তিগত ব্যাংক স্টেটমেন্ট কমিশনের হাতে মজুদ। এটা ওনার দাবী। সত্য-মিথ্যা জানিনা।
  • Rabaahuta | 132.171.109.47 | ২৬ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ০০:৪৮369547
  • পবঙ্গের সিপিয়েম ঋতব্রত নিয়ে কাজিয়া করুন। আর ত্রিপুরায় অমিত শাহ বোয়াল মাছ নিয়ে চলে যাক।
  • h | 194.185.177.155 | ২৬ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০১৭ ০৪:৪৭369549
  • একটা পার্টির মধ্যে ফেয়ার ট্রায়াল আবার কি? ঃ-) বিচার হিসেবে এসব দাঁড়ায় ই না।

    ঋতব্রত মামলা করলে ভালো ই হবে, তবে তার ঐ মহিলা সংক্রান্ত তোলা বোষয়ে বিষয়ে মামলা করা ছাড়া আর বিশেষ গ্রাউন্ড আছে কিনা জানি না। কারণ সব মহিলা সামনে আসতে নাও চাইতে পারেন। বা এই মামলা অন্য মামলার পথপ্রদর্শক হতে পারে।

    ব্যংক অ্যাকাউন্ট এর তথ্য যদি পার্টি দেশের আইন ভেঙ্গে নিয়ে থাকে, যদিও অ্যাকাউন্ট স্টেটমেন্ট পার্টির লোকের হাতে ছিল বলে যে অভিযোগ সেই অভিযোগ এর ভিত্তি ঠিক টেপ করা কনভারসেশন দিয়ে পাওয়া যাবে কিনা বলা কঠিন। আর অ্যাকাউন্ট এর বিষয়ে, দেশের ইনকাম ট্যাক্স ডিপার্টমেন্ট দেখতে চাইলে দেখতে পারে, তবে বিজেপি তে জয়েন করলে নাও দেখতে পারে। কারণ সারদা নারদা র এক্সপেরিয়েন্স তাই বলছে, যে দেখা হবে কিনা বিষয় টা রাজনৈতিক।

    তবে যেহেতু এই বিচার কোন বিচার না, শুধু একটা পার্টি তে একটা লোক থাকতে পারবে কিনা তার একটা বিষয়ে পার্টির মতামত মাত্র, সে বিষয়ে বিচার চাওয়া যায় কিনা জানিনা। মানে একটা অর্গানাইজেশন গঠন্তন্ত্র গোছের কিছু আদৌ তৈরী করতে পারে কিনা সেটা যদি বিচার্য্য হয় সব পার্টি, এন্জিও ক্লাব তার নিয়মাবলী তুলে দেওয়া যায়। অবশ্য সত্যি ই দেওয়া গেলে ক্ষতি নেই,

    তো এই বিচার যদি সত্যি কারের দুটো মামলা তৈরী করে, তাইলে আসল বিচার হলেও হতে পারে, এখনো পর্যন্ত এটা পাড়া র ক্লাবের নিজেদের দলাদলি। মতাদর্শ গত ইসু র কোনো মূল্য আইনে থাকা উচিত না।

    জেনেরালি আমার অন্য একটা দিক মনে হচ্ছে। সবাই মিলে একটা বাচ্চা ছেলে কে তাড়িয়ে দিল, তার যদি ডিপ্রেসন হয়? আমরাও পাব্লিক ফিগার যেহেতু বক্তব্য রাখছি, ঠিকাছে, আমি নিজে নানা জায়্গায় স্টোনওয়াল্ড হয়েছি, এই অভিজ্ঞতা দুঃসহ, আমার ঐ দিকটা নিয়ে একটু খারাপ লাগছে। এমনি রাজনৈতিক নেতার উপরে এম্প্যাথি করে কি করবো, কিন্তু আফটার অল বাচ্চা ছেলে, এবং এই স্ল্যান্ডার ম্যাচ এটা কি মামলা হোক বা না হোক কোন দরকার ছিল। এই প্রতিহিংসা পরায়নতা কোত্থেকে আসে, কেন এই সব স্ল্যান্ডার ম্যাচ বুঝি না, এর পেছনে অন্য প্রচুর ব্যক্তিগত ইকুয়েশন আছে শিয়োর, নইলে এই লেভেলের কনসিস্টেন্ট ল্যাম্পুনিং এবং তার বিচিত্র প্রতিক্রিয়া, এবং একটা ছেলে ইনটারভিউ দেওয়ার সময়েও অভিযোগ যা আনছে, সেটা র মধ্যে পোলিটিকাল বক্তব্য যা, সেটা পরে ফিট ইন করানো, তার সঙ্গে আসল ঝামেলা র কোন সম্পর্ক নাই। খুব ই স্যাড। কোনো পার্টিতেই এসব হওয়া উচিত না।
  • মতামত দিন
  • বিষয়বস্তু*:
এই সাইটটি বার পঠিত
  • কি, কেন, ইত্যাদি
  • বাজার অর্থনীতির ধরাবাঁধা খাদ্য-খাদক সম্পর্কের বাইরে বেরিয়ে এসে এমন এক আস্তানা বানাব আমরা, যেখানে ক্রমশ: মুছে যাবে লেখক ও পাঠকের বিস্তীর্ণ ব্যবধান। পাঠকই লেখক হবে, মিডিয়ার জগতে থাকবেনা কোন ব্যকরণশিক্ষক, ক্লাসরুমে থাকবেনা মিডিয়ার মাস্টারমশাইয়ের জন্য কোন বিশেষ প্ল্যাটফর্ম। এসব আদৌ হবে কিনা, গুরুচণ্ডালি টিকবে কিনা, সে পরের কথা, কিন্তু দু পা ফেলে দেখতে দোষ কী? ... আরও ...
  • আমাদের কথা
  • আপনি কি কম্পিউটার স্যাভি? সারাদিন মেশিনের সামনে বসে থেকে আপনার ঘাড়ে পিঠে কি স্পন্ডেলাইটিস আর চোখে পুরু অ্যান্টিগ্লেয়ার হাইপাওয়ার চশমা? এন্টার মেরে মেরে ডান হাতের কড়ি আঙুলে কি কড়া পড়ে গেছে? আপনি কি অন্তর্জালের গোলকধাঁধায় পথ হারাইয়াছেন? সাইট থেকে সাইটান্তরে বাঁদরলাফ দিয়ে দিয়ে আপনি কি ক্লান্ত? বিরাট অঙ্কের টেলিফোন বিল কি জীবন থেকে সব সুখ কেড়ে নিচ্ছে? আপনার দুশ্‌চিন্তার দিন শেষ হল। ... আরও ...
  • বুলবুলভাজা
  • এ হল ক্ষমতাহীনের মিডিয়া। গাঁয়ে মানেনা আপনি মোড়ল যখন নিজের ঢাক নিজে পেটায়, তখন তাকেই বলে হরিদাস পালের বুলবুলভাজা। পড়তে থাকুন রোজরোজ। দু-পয়সা দিতে পারেন আপনিও, কারণ ক্ষমতাহীন মানেই অক্ষম নয়। বুলবুলভাজায় বাছাই করা সম্পাদিত লেখা প্রকাশিত হয়। এখানে লেখা দিতে হলে লেখাটি ইমেইল করুন, বা, গুরুচন্ডা৯ ব্লগ (হরিদাস পাল) বা অন্য কোথাও লেখা থাকলে সেই ওয়েব ঠিকানা পাঠান (ইমেইল ঠিকানা পাতার নীচে আছে), অনুমোদিত এবং সম্পাদিত হলে লেখা এখানে প্রকাশিত হবে। ... আরও ...
  • হরিদাস পালেরা
  • এটি একটি খোলা পাতা, যাকে আমরা ব্লগ বলে থাকি। গুরুচন্ডালির সম্পাদকমন্ডলীর হস্তক্ষেপ ছাড়াই, স্বীকৃত ব্যবহারকারীরা এখানে নিজের লেখা লিখতে পারেন। সেটি গুরুচন্ডালি সাইটে দেখা যাবে। খুলে ফেলুন আপনার নিজের বাংলা ব্লগ, হয়ে উঠুন একমেবাদ্বিতীয়ম হরিদাস পাল, এ সুযোগ পাবেন না আর, দেখে যান নিজের চোখে...... আরও ...
  • টইপত্তর
  • নতুন কোনো বই পড়ছেন? সদ্য দেখা কোনো সিনেমা নিয়ে আলোচনার জায়গা খুঁজছেন? নতুন কোনো অ্যালবাম কানে লেগে আছে এখনও? সবাইকে জানান। এখনই। ভালো লাগলে হাত খুলে প্রশংসা করুন। খারাপ লাগলে চুটিয়ে গাল দিন। জ্ঞানের কথা বলার হলে গুরুগম্ভীর প্রবন্ধ ফাঁদুন। হাসুন কাঁদুন তক্কো করুন। স্রেফ এই কারণেই এই সাইটে আছে আমাদের বিভাগ টইপত্তর। ... আরও ...
  • ভাটিয়া৯
  • যে যা খুশি লিখবেন৷ লিখবেন এবং পোস্ট করবেন৷ তৎক্ষণাৎ তা উঠে যাবে এই পাতায়৷ এখানে এডিটিং এর রক্তচক্ষু নেই, সেন্সরশিপের ঝামেলা নেই৷ এখানে কোনো ভান নেই, সাজিয়ে গুছিয়ে লেখা তৈরি করার কোনো ঝকমারি নেই৷ সাজানো বাগান নয়, আসুন তৈরি করি ফুল ফল ও বুনো আগাছায় ভরে থাকা এক নিজস্ব চারণভূমি৷ আসুন, গড়ে তুলি এক আড়ালহীন কমিউনিটি ... আরও ...
গুরুচণ্ডা৯-র সম্পাদিত বিভাগের যে কোনো লেখা অথবা লেখার অংশবিশেষ অন্যত্র প্রকাশ করার আগে গুরুচণ্ডা৯-র লিখিত অনুমতি নেওয়া আবশ্যক। অসম্পাদিত বিভাগের লেখা প্রকাশের সময় গুরুতে প্রকাশের উল্লেখ আমরা পারস্পরিক সৌজন্যের প্রকাশ হিসেবে অনুরোধ করি। যোগাযোগ করুন, লেখা পাঠান এই ঠিকানায় : [email protected] ।


মে ১৩, ২০১৪ থেকে সাইটটি বার পঠিত
পড়েই ক্ষান্ত দেবেন না। না ঘাবড়ে প্রতিক্রিয়া দিন।