Revisionism and de-Stalinization

A very careful and gradual process took the process of “revisionism” forward. It was evident to the revisionists that they cannot attack socialism directly or else they would face popular opposition. So instead of attacking the idea, that would have invited hostility, they attacked the person who developed socialism in USSR. They attacked Stalin.

During the last decade or so of Stalin's life the western media, controlled and run by bourgeois-imperialist states, was vomiting every possible criticism against Stalin. “Stalin killed 50 million people in USSR”, was the slogan of the every imperialist.

The revisionists deployed a shrewd and evil tactic. Khrushchev, in his four hour long speech in 1956 in the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of SU, if I am not mistaken, accepted all the blames against Stalin. He accepted that Stalin was the “evil-doer”, getting in coherence with the western media. The repercussions of such a statement on the people can be thought of but must be researched. The people were told that it was not socialism that is bad, but it was Stalin who made it bad. The effect of the propaganda done at that time is even present today when every second newcomer in socialist struggle disowns Stalin.

Thus started the process of de-Stalinization, better known as “revisionism”. The revisionists, while taking steps against the name of Stalin, made arrangement to end socialism in the Soviet Union.

Communism collapsed in USSR

This is a discussion that took place on the orkut community of CMKP.

I asked, "Don't dare to think that it is me who thinks communism collapsed in USSR."Communism collapsed in USSR", is usually the first statement that you would listen from a non-communist. Almost all of us know the frequency of this statement in the non-communist circles. I would like to know how comrades, on this community, answer this ignorant statement.I will also give my reply soon."

Asad said, "Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.As China is making probleems for USA and just look at North Korea.Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan.Communism was not a factor in tht breakup. "

My reply to Asad, "Well, this was not an answer I was expecting. Please allow me to ask you few further questions to continue the discussion. In the mean time, other comrades should come forward to give their views on the topic.

Soviet collapse does'nt mean tht communism collaps still communism in the shape of MAOISM is big problem for USA.

So, do you mean to say that collapse of Soviet Union was the collapse of Soviet socialist model, which was presented by Lenin and stregthened by Stalin?

Is Maoism different from marxism-leninism?

Soviet Union was breakup due to long lasting war in Afghanistan

How? USSR defeated fascist/nazi super powers during the WW2. How could it not bear the Afghan war? USSR emerged as a military super power after WW2, thanks to the leadership of Stalin and CPSU, and was in a position to easily bear any military pressure from anyside.

Clearly, Afghan war was not a major factor in Soviet Union disintegration at a time when USSR.

Communism was not a factor in tht breakup.

Alright. But what was the major factor? Where is Revisionism?

After the death of great communist leader, Stalin, in 1953, revisionist powers took control of the USSR, under a imperialist conspiracy. So, the collapse of USSR was not of communism, but a collapse of this revisionist philosophy.

The last leader of USSR, Gorbachev, said in an interview in 2001 that "my aim was to bring an end to communism in USSR".

So, the phenomenon that caused disintegration of USSR was not socialism but revisionism. Had the USSR followed the soclist legacy of Stalin, USSR would have been a super-power. The propect of a disintegration under Stalin was out of question because of his strategy of dealing with nationalities, approved by Lenin in 1913.

So, the moral of the story is Down with Revisionism"

Bhagat Singh said, "The process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Khrushev and his gang of revisionists started this counter revolutionary process in the name of "De-Stalinization". In the name de-stalinization he and the group of revisionist leaders after him(Brezhnev and Gorbachev) succesfully purged the Soviet Union from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism. Mao said in 1963:

"I believe there are two swords. One is the sword of Lenin, and the other is the sword of Stalin. The Soviet Union has thrown away the sword of Stalin, and has thus also thrown away the sword of Lenin. We Chinese, have not thrown these swords away, and are continuing to build Socialism on the principles of Marxism-Leninism."

A series of Economic, and political reforms, coupled with a radical change in the foreign policy of the CPSU led to a gradual process of degeneration in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the process of capitalist restoration was completed in 1991, when capitalism was firmly established in the Soviet Union, and replaced the remnants of Socialism in that country. This transition pushed over 20 million people into the poverty trap, and today Russia has been transformed from a Super power, into a third world country.

However, all is not lost. The Communist movement is gaining strength each day in the former Soviet Union. The Communist party is once again the largest party of Russia. It got the most votes in the 2000 local elections. In a recent protest it managed to bring millions of people to the streets, with the Red Flag raised over their heads, and pictures of Lenin and Stalin hailed with pride.

Marxist-Leninists the world over are waiting patiently for the revival of worker's power in the Soviet Union.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!
Long Live the Workers Struggle!
Death to Imperialism!
Death to America!"

I agree with Bhagat Singh's reply.

Raza said, "In the 1940s and 1950s within the international Communist movement, revisionism was used to describe Communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry, accepted national differences and encouraged capital reforms.

USSR was under authoritarian rule. Isnt that revisionism enough? And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down? Communism never collapsed and never will. USSR did not have the flesh to bring communism down with it."

Bhagat Singh reply to Raza,
"Comrade,
I seriously disagree with you, over various points. Firstly, I disagree with your definition of Revisionism. Modern revisionism refers to a tendency which arose within the Communist movement. It was a regressive movement, which began a process of capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union under Khrushchv, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
However, to say that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state(and hence revisionist) is doubly incorrect in my opinion.
Firstly, I disagree with the statement that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state, on the grounds that the U.S.S.R(despite its revisionist tendencies) continued to be a Socialist state albeit in a revisionist form. The political and socio-economic framework of the U.S.S.R continued to adhere to the principles of socialism in one way or the other, and hence, to suggest that the U.S.S.R was an authoritarian state is to give in to the propaganda of the imperialists.
Secondly, authoritarianism is not equal to revisionism. Revisionism(derived from the root word revision), when appllied to the Communist movement, refers to the tendency of "revising" the political and historic program of the party leading to a deviation from the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
I would agree with your last statement.. the disintegration of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of Communism. However, the CMKP own's the heritage of the U.S.S.R, and considers it one of the greatest victories of the workers and peasants in the 20th century.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism!"

My reply to Raza, " I would first chanllenge the premises that you used to legitimize revisionism.

Was USSR government auhtoritarian in 40s and 50s (under Stalin’s rule)?

The USSR government was not authoritarian both in theory and substance of the Stalin Constitution of 1936.

"If democracy lies in the participation of people in the affairs of government and freedom from material worries and cares, then one shall have to admit that Soviet Union is the most democratic country in the World [under the Stalin Constitution of 1936(pg 278)... While defending the monopolistic position of the Communist party, Stalin said, "As to freedom for various political parties, we adhere to somewhat different view. A party is a part of class, its most advanced part. Several parties can exist only in a society in which there are antagonistic classes whose interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable... But in Soviet Union there are no longer such classes. In USSR, there are only two different classes, workers and peasants, whose interests, far from being hostile, are on the contrary, friendly. Hence there is no ground in the USSR far existence of several parties and consequently for the freedom of these parties"" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley

There were direct elections in USSR, and they continued even during the WW2, while there were no elections elsewhere in the world during that time.

"The Communist leadership of the SU is very proud of the fact that voters in the SU take and living interest in public affairs since almost 100% votes were recorded whereas in democratic countries like England and the USA only 50 to 76% voters record their votes" World Constitution by S.L. Kaeley pg 282

Furthermore, there was also a Right of Recall available to the citizens. By employing this right the citizens were allowed to "pull-back" their representatives from the representative bodies.

The second part of the question is: did Stalin play an authoritarian role in the Communist Party of Soviet Union?

The evidence points out that in the start there was active opposition to the programs of Stalin. The Party often restrained his proposals.

This is what Comrade Klo pointed out in the CMKP email list on Yahoo groups.

"In 1932 events seem to be coming to a climax, with Stalin's most loyal
supporters at their wits' ends. There was a dramatic meeting in the
Politburo that must have taken place about the end of 1932. The actual
date is not known, but there's no question that at that meeting Stalin
suffered a painful reverse. The most credible account of the meeting is
as follows:
The situation at the moment was under discussion. A dramatic speech
was made by Voroshilov, who was then Commander-in-Chief in the army....
Voroshilov is said to have given, in the utmost agitation, a report of a
disastrous state of feeling in the Army; he is said to have thrown whole
packets of soldiers letters on the table and demanded that something
should at once be done. Stalin's proposals-- their nature is not
known--were rejected,...."
Basseches, Nikolaus. Stalin. London, New York: Staples Press, 1952, p. 188

To read complete Klo's post on the issue, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3404.

Many of the Stalin's proposals were not opposed later on because all his bona fide opposers later found that Stalin was correct on the issue that they opposed.

Therefore, having attempted to establish that USSR was not authoritarian state under Stalin (1924-1953) in the first place, it is a contradiction, for me, to accept revisionism on that perticular reason.

And then, wasn't it just another threat to capitalism and imperialism that just had to be brought down?

According to Marxist principles, it’s not possible to move from an advanced stage of Production and Production relations to a backward one. The principle does not mean that this movement is not possible but that this backward movement will result in a disaster. Substantially, revisionism is incompetent to fight capitalism and imperialism as it is bound to fail.

Now that the Russian economy is even smaller from that of Norway, the theory presented above holds true.

Communism never collapsed and never will.

Long Live the Revolution!


P.S. Read the article about Gorbachev. According to Clinton, Gorbacev "will go down in history as a person who changed the world for the better."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/message/3502

I would suggest you to read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martins. An online copy of the book is available free at http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html."

Privatization at Gunpoint By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

The transfer of assets from peripheral states to international financial oligarchies is one of the defining tenets of the neoliberal counter-revolution. As a general rule, this latest form of neocolonial transfer of surplus to the industrialized core has proceeded relatively successfully in many peripheral states, with many Latin American states standing out as significant exceptions. In Pakistan, where the ruling state oligarchy has historically been the equivalent of a comprador bourgeoisie, this process has accelerated since it was initiated in the late 1980s...

To read rest of the article visit http://monthlyreview.org/1005akhtar.htm.

Cuba and the U.S. Che Guevara

The questions below were submitted, in writing, to Comandante Guevara by Leo Huberman during the week of the invasion; the answers were received the end of June.—The Editors

(1) Have relations with the U.S. gone “over the brink” or is it still possible to work out a modus vivendi?

This question has two answers: one, which we might term “philosophical,” and the other, “political.” The philosophical answer is that the aggressive state of North American monopoly capitalism and the accelerated transition toward fascism make any kind of agreement impossible; and relations will necessarily remain tense or even worse until the final destruction of imperialism. The other, political answer, asserts that these relations are not our fault, and that, as we have many times demonstrated, the most recent time being after the defeat of the Giron Beach landing, we are ready for any kind of agreement on terms of equality with the Government of the United States.

(2) The U.S. holds Cuba responsible for the rupture in relations while Cuba blames the U.S. What part of the blame, in your opinion, can be correctly attributed to your country? In short, what mistakes have you made in your dealings with the U.S.?

Very few, we believe; perhaps some in matters of form. But we hold the firm conviction that we have acted for our part in accord with the right, and that we have responded to the interests of the people in each of our acts. The trouble is that our interests, that is, those of the people, and the interests of the North American monopolies are at variance.

(3) Assuming that the U.S. means to smash the Cuban Revolution, what are the chances of its getting help from the O.A.S. group?

Everything depends on what is meant by “smash.” If this means the violent destruction of the revolutionary regime with the help—likewise direct—of the O.A.S., I believe there is very little possibility, because history cannot be ignored. The countries of America understand the value of active solidarity among friendly countries, and they would not risk a reversal of such magnitude.

(4) Does Cuba align itself in international affairs with the neutralist or Soviet bloc

Cuba will align herself with justice; or, to be less absolute, with what she takes for justice. We do not practice politics by blocs, so that we cannot side with the neutralist bloc, nor, for the same reason, do we belong to the socialist bloc. But wherever there is a question of defending a just cause, there we will cast our votes—even on the side of the United States if that country should ever assume the role of defending just causes.

(5) What is Cuba's chief domestic problem?

It is difficult to assess problems with such precision. I can mention several: the “guerrillerismo” which still exists in the government; the lack of comprehension on the part of some sectors of the people of the necessity for sacrifice; the lack of some raw materials for industries and some non-durable consumer goods, resulting in certain scarcities; the uncertainty as to when the next imperialist attack will take place; the upsets in production caused by mobilization. These are some of the problems which trouble us at times, but, far from distressing us, they serve to accustom us to the struggle.

(6) How do you explain the growing number of Cuban counter-revolutionaries and the defection of so many former revolutionaries?:

Revolutions function by waves. When Mr. Huberman asked this question, perhaps it was accurate, but today there are fewer counter-revolutionaries than before Giron Beach. The counter-revolutionary attack increased slowly until it reached its climax on Giron Beach; then it was defeated and fell drastically to zero. Now that it is again attempting to raise its head and inflict new harm, our intention is to eliminate the counter-revolutionaries.

The defections of more or less prominent figures are due to the fact that the socialist revolution left the opportunists, the ambitious, and the fearful far behind and now advances toward a new regime free of this class of vermin.

(7) Can the countries of Latin America solve their problems while maintaining the capitalist system, or must they take the path of socialism as Cuba has done?

It seems elementary to us that the way of the socialist revolution must be chosen, the exploitation of man by man must be abolished, economic planning must be undertaken, and all means of assisting the public welfare must be placed at the service of the community.

(8) Are civil liberties, Western style, permanently finished while your government is in power?

This would depend on what civil rights were referred to—the civil right, for example, of the white to make the Negro sit in the rear of a bus; the right of the white to keep the Negro off a beach or bar him from a certain zone; the right of the Ku Klux Klan to assassinate any Negro who looks at a white woman; the right of a Faubus, in a word, or perhaps the right of a Trujillo, or Somoza, or Stroessner, or Duvalier. In any case, it would be necessary to define the term more precisely, to see if it also includes the right to welcome punitive expeditions sent by a country to the north.

(9) What kind of political system do you envisage for Cuba after the present emergency period of reorganization and reconstruction is over?

In general terms it may be said that a political power which is attentive to the needs of the majority of the people must be in constant communication with the people and must know how to express what the people, with their many mouths, only hint at. How to achieve this is a practical task which will take us some time. In any event, the present revolutionary period must still persist for some time, and it is not possible to talk of structural reorganization while the threat of war still haunts our island.

NAXALITE

Brothers and sisters of the soul unite
We are one, indivisible and strong
They may try to break us
But they dare not underestimate us
They know our memories are long
A mass of sleeping villages
That’s how they’re pitching it
At least that’s what they try to pretend
But check out our history
So rich and revolutionary
A prophecy
That we will rise again!

Like springing tigers
We encircle the cities
To the future we will take an oath
High up in the mountains
Deep in the forest
Our home is the undergrowth.

And we must never give up
Until the land is ours
No never give in
’til we have taken the power.

Because, I am just a naxalite warrior
Fighting for survival and equality
Policeman beating up me, my brother and my father
My mother crying ’can’t believe this reality’

Iron like a lion from zion
This one going out to all youth, man and woman
Original master ’d’ ’pon the microphone stand
Cater for no sceptical man me don’t give a damn!

’cos me a naxalite warrior.....

Long Live Revolution!

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/asian-dub-foundation/9693.html

Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa

I came accross this movie review while surfing the internet. It's a well written review about a seemingly good movie.

 

Have a good reading.

 

In Solidarity!

 

 

 

Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa

*ing: Jaya Bachchan, Nandita Das, Seema Biswas, Anupam Kher and Joy Sengupta

Director: Govind Nihalani

Six years back when I visited India, I saw a poster of a movie Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa (Mother of 1084) at the Novelty Cinema located in Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow. The cinema was not a third rate one, but I didn't go inside to see the film. However, some two months back, when I was roaming around Rainbow Centre in the metropolis of Karachi, the same poster with the same title passed from my eyes, and I bought the movie, because this is one of those films that look very arty and innocuous, but if you have been initiated into good cinema, they merit a watch.

Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa is directed by Govind Nihalani and is based on a seminal novel by the formidable Mahasweta Devi. It is scripted faithfully and keeps in mind the human truth of the Naxalbari Movement, waged on May 25, 1967, in the Darjeeling area – a completely agricultural land of West Bengal, India – for getting minimum wages for agricultural workers. During the time of CPI–M's coalition government, the movement spread quickly and finally it reached the main cities of West Bengal, especially Calcutta – the capital of the state.

In Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa, the Calcutta of the 1970s is captured when the air was alive with revolutionary fervour and Bengali youth reacted with anger against hypocrisies, injustices, betrayals and counter violence of the State. During this period, the city was in grip of a Marxist–Leninist–Maoist movement of liberating the downtrodden farmers from the iron clinch of upper class landlords. Thousands of young men were arrested and many were shot dead. A special force, organised by the government to tackle these young revolutionaries, was given the authority to use brute force to handle the situation.

The movie begins with a phone call asking the mother of a Naxalite, Sujata Chatterjee (Jaya Bachchan) to come to a morgue to recognise her son's corpse. The body has been reduced to a mere numerical, corpse no. 1084. Her 22–year–old son named Bratti Chatterjee (Joy Sengupta) was a scion of an educated, cultured bhadralok family and, by every means, was a firebrand Marxist. He was in close contact with the leading members of the Naxalbari Movement that was led by the Communist Party of India.

Though she is many ways a traditional housewife, Sujata is shown as the most powerful character in the movie. She also works for a commercial bank in Calcutta and belongs to an upper middle class family. Her husband Dibyanath Chatterjee (Anupam Kher) is a typical businessman, who believes in saluting the powerful. The story really starts unravelling when Sujata comes to know that the death of her son was at the hands of certain members of the Calcutta police. She decides to investigate what really happened to her son and his friends and comrades.

On the journey of discovering her son's militant revolutionary commitment and to understand his struggle against the exploitative system, that is feudalism–cum–capitalism, Sujata begins to realise that she herself is alienated as a woman, housewife and mother from the bourgeois social values prevailing in the social circles of Calcutta. It is her story and her realisations as an individual that form the heart of Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa.

It is difficult for a person like me to remember when I was so disturbed by the depths and insights shown in any Indian movie lately. Yes, watching Chandni Bar, The Terrorist, or The Legend of Bhagat Singh (Raj Kumar Santoshi's version) gave me much food for thought, but this Govind Nihalani venture, which circles the revolutionary political consciousness of the region's Leftist youth made me an insomniac for some days. Sometimes, a film transcends your objective critical faculties and touches that rare chord of emotion. That is the point where you get absorbed in the emotional trauma of the story depicted in a particular movie to make you realise that 'People of this kind have also lived their lives for a cause.'

It also makes you think about the real events on which the film is based and when the context of such a movie was produced by a director like Nihalani, the whole story makes such an impact on you, it can cut your heart into two and stun your brain with emotional shock. And then it makes you think and re evaluate your own value system Playing an intense role of Mrs. Sujata Chatterjee, Jaya, in an attempt to regain a sense of self from the intense psychological and emotional trauma, gains some deep insights, through the whole course of the movie, into a complex relationship between personal and apolitical aspects of her social life. Though, the film proceeds on a slow and reflective pace so as to be proper to its conversational approach, which is of such a length that all characters gradually open their minds and hearts to viewers regarding the lamentable family loss in particular, and the state of their society, in general.

The dusky beauty Nandita Das, who was so effective in Deepa Mehta's controversial film Fire, plays a marvellous role of an idealist believer of Marxism. Being a revolutionary figure she goes beyond her personal grief to become an uncompromising fighter against the atrocities of police. Do concentrate on the scene where Jaya visits her son's girlfriend Nandani Mitra (Nandita Das) who is also a member of the movement. Nandani recalls memories of Bratti and helps Sujata connect with her dead son. They 'meet' one another in a real emotional, loving and caring way – for the last time. The scene is handled beautifully. After all, Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa is not your standard Bollywood potboiler.

The film goes back and forth in time, with flashbacks of Bratti, when the mother relives those moments and finds the clues for her state of mind, which she had not noticed before. It is easy to quibble and wonder how a working woman of Calcutta of those times could be so blind, so uninformed and so apolitical, but then, the way the film translates the novel makes Sujata's self–wrought isolation, not only understandable but also representative of a certain social segment, which wants to have nothing to do with politics.

Seema Biswas (the mother of Somu, who was a comrade of Bratti) plays the role of a low class Bihari woman whose son has also been killed during the same clash in which Bratti was murdered. The scene when Sujata visits Somu's place first time is enough to disturb anyone who has a soft heart and inflict great pain on someone who knows the real history of the movement. The way the two mothers mourn their loss brings out the class and cultural differences. Seema Biswas is warmly uninhibited – both in grief and expression of affection – and Jaya Bachchan contains her feelings, which gradually reveal themselves in all their complexity, rather than the usual cathartic outburst.

But there are flaws in this gem of a film. A scene in which Bratti beats an outlaw seems so childishly filmed. The way he is beating him gives you a feeling that the director has failed to capture the scene of a real clash. Action is not a forte of Govind Nihalani, not even when it is as raw as this.

Another sequence which seems uselessly prolonged, compared to the smooth dramatic flow and astonishing poetic transitions, comes during the crucial interaction between the two women – Sujata and Nandani, the grieving mother and the resolute sweetheart, whose torture by the police has hardened her resolve into steely strength. It is the younger woman who gives the older woman the courage to do something purposeful with her life, but the scene does drag.

But then there is one scene that more than makes up for all shortcomings. It is when a party is held at the Chatterjee House to celebrate the engagement of Bratti's sister on the eve of his second death anniversary. The dialogue narrated by Sujata in the background shows the intense condition of her state of mind. The scene also shows the naked reality of the capitalist system and becomes extremely critical against the attitudes of the elite class. Incidentally, Nihalani shoots this scene like an extended piece of satire, when a lot of noted stage and screen names play brilliant cameos in a charade of social pretension and hypocrisy.

Govind Nihalani has always tried to fuse his political consciousness with cinema and proves that he is presently one of the sub–continent's most politically daring filmmakers. He is also famous for depicting sensitive issues existing in Indian society. From the intense characterisation in Aakrosh to the dramatic depiction of the psyche of angry anti–establishment lads holding AK–47s in Drohkaal, Nihalani has proved his worth as a director. Though, he over-sensationalised the characters in Dev, but people still have good hopes for new artistic pieces.

Not to over–estimate Nihalani's wonderful personality as a director by regarding him as a sensitive and sober director in Bollywood, I think it was his artistic capabilities and Jaya Bachchan's impressive facial expressions, which helped Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa win the National Award for Best Regional Feature Film in 1998.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please," Marx famously wrote. I think this statement does imply on Indian directors too. In the process of making such movies, Nihalani is trying to make his own history as an alternative revolutionary director, though he cannot write it just as he pleases.

 

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-weekly/nos-26-12-2004/instep.htm#3

---

 

http://reddiarypk.blogspot.com/

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

When the mountains mourn By Amar Jaleel

Was the earthquake a punishment from God or just nature’s way of trimming the population?

Pompeii, a Roman port and a resort in Italy for the sensuous pleasures of the rulers, the rich and the commanders of the world conquering legions was violently jolted by a massive earthquake in AD63. Much of the city of pomp, power and grandeur was destroyed.

The Romans recovered from the shock, restored what was devastated and commenced the life of luxury and lust. Within 15 years the lechers erased the dreadful memory of the frightening earthquake, as if it was a nightmare. One night when the elites, rulers and the generals were immersed in pleasure, Mount Vesuvius, a nearby volcano erupted hell that lit the sky above. Pompeii was completely buried beneath the smouldering lava. Its ruins now constitute one of the major tourist attractions in Italy.

It is generally believed to this day that the earthquake, and then the volcanic eruption was a punishment that God inflicted on the sinners of Pompeii. It is a common belief among the followers of different religions. They maintain that God punishes the wayward, the misled and the ones who go astray. They defy His Commandments and in return are scourged. Natural disasters are always taken in this context by the adherents of the various faiths.

Thomas Robert Malthus, social scientist and an economist advocated that population increases faster than food supply. When the population outgrows food production, the nature steps in and checks the population through disasters such as epidemics, earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions. According to Malthus, only the required number of people survive a holocaust for whom the food is sufficient. All along Malthus had not been able to provide a convincing foundation to his theory. His hypothesis was rejected and turned down by both the physical as well as the social scientists. Medicinal checks on population have proved more effective than the natural checks.

From times immemorial, man has tried his hand at giving some kind of definition to the phenomenon beyond his comprehension. He associates most of the explanations with his faith and belief. He pays no heed to the scientific interpretations for the natural calamities. He attributes a ritual meaning to the solar and lunar eclipses. Man is on the record to have worshipped anything that inspired awe within him. He worshipped oceans because the immenseness frightened him. He worshipped lightening. He worshipped huge mountains. He worshipped volcanoes. He worshipped trees. He worshipped serpents. He worshipped fire. He worshipped rivers. He worshipped the sun and the moon.

Later on when he comprehended what had remained unexplained to him, he abandoned the gods he had worshipped out of his own enigma. His creativity later on induced him for making images of the deities he had never seen, a man with a bull’s head, man with a lion’s limbs, man with a pair of wings, man with several arms and heads, and so on. Of all such images the most revered image is that of Ganesh, a god with the body of a man and head of an elephant.

The scientific age of today has not altered the fundamental thinking of man. He very strongly believes that the volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and rest of the natural disasters are God’s punishment that he inflicts on the disobedient. While respecting other peoples’ faiths and beliefs, let us take an academic view of Pompeii’s devastation.

The rich and the influential who indulged in all sorts of sensuous pleasures were not the only residents of Pompeii. The port resort was inhabited by large number of servants, maids, slaves, gardeners, guards and the foot soldiers who protected the palaces. They were the wretched, insulted and humiliated souls on the soil of the sinners. If God had intended to punish the evildoers, then He, in His all providence, could have saved the poor from the holocaust. Thereby, He would have shown to the world that he punishes the sinners and doesn’t touch the innocent.

In Pompeii’s devastation a large number of servants and the slaves perished along with a handful of debauches. God couldn’t have been that callous. What struck Pompeii were two natural disasters, an earthquake and a volcanic eruption.

I have been constantly listening and reading in the newspapers ever since the devastating earthquake played havoc with Pakistan in the North that the holocaust was God’s punishment for our sins. Man doesn’t desist from attributing his wishful thinking to the Creator. He wants Allah to speak his language. The hundreds of thousands of men, women and the children who perished in Abbotabad, Mansehra, Balakot, Bagh, Muzaffarabad, and the surrounding towns and villages were men of moderate means. Most of them belonged to the lower income group who had to strive for their survival. They did not belong to the coterie of corrupt bureaucrats, funds usurpers, swindlers of banks, and kickback receivers with bank accounts in distant lands. The mountain people were not the drugs dealers. They were clean people with clean conscience.

We have Pompeiis in some of the so-called posh localities in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad, patronized and frequented by the rich and the influential. Why would God bury alive the children of the mountain people in their schools for the sins committed by the prosperous evildoers elsewhere in the Pompeiis of Pakistan!



(Dawn Magazine; October 23, 2005)

Let the Cuban doctors come to Pakistan!

Rahimullah Yusufzai

 

A BBC TV report by Gavin Hewitt from Abbottabad highlighted the plight of overworked doctors as they try to cope with an unending flow of people injured in the October 8 earthquake. One of the younger surgeons said he had performed around 100 amputations on patients with gangrenous limbs. Senior surgeon Dr Sahibzada made a telling parting remark. He said instead of money (he used the word pound) there was a need for skilled doctors to undertake the mounting load of work at the Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad and other hospitals in the quake-affected region.

 

We must seek advise from people such as Dr Sahibzada while making contingency medical plans to cope with the tragedy that has struck Pakistan. He and his colleagues need helping hands to treat patients and perform surgeries. This reminds one of the generous offer made by President Fidel Castro of Cuba to send 200 doctors specialised in natural disasters and serious epidemics to help the earthquake affectees. The Cuban government has made it clear that it would bear all expenses relating to transportation of the doctors while requisite stock of medicines would also be sent to Pakistan.

 

It is learnt that the Pakistan government has conveyed to Cuba that it wants 50 doctors only. One hopes Islamabad would review its decision and let all 200 doctors come to Pakistan. We need many more doctors, nurses and paramedics in view of the unprecedented scale of the death and destruction wrought by the earthquake. Hundreds of injured people are flocking to hospitals in Azad Kashmir, Mansehra, Battagram, Abbottabad, Dassu, Swat, Peshawar and even Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Lahore. A UN report said 1,000 hospitals, mostly small ones, in Pakistan have been destroyed in the earthquake, prompting the government to make an urgent appeal to the international community for field hospitals, antibiotics, anti-typhoid medicines, fracture treatment kits, and surgical equipment.

 

One is sure the Cubans would be able to contribute a lot toward meeting this need. Their doctors have served in Third World countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia and have done commendable work to earn the affection of their patients and the gratitude of numerous communities and governments. They also possess experience in working in tough conditions and dealing with natural disasters and epidemics. The Cubans are best suited to working in conditions prevailing in poor developing countries such as Pakistan.

 

They have proved time and again that good results could be achieved with minimum resources. Despite US-sponsored economic sanctions and limited resources, Cuba has been able to offer its citizens an efficient health delivery system that has earned praise from international organizations.

 

In fact, we could learn a lot from the Cuban doctors and medical administrators and apply some of the lessons learnt to improve our hopelessly inadequate health delivery system. A number of countries have benefited from the Cuban experience and Pakistan too would gain rather than lose anything by experimenting with methods employed by Mr Castro's revolutionary government to build one of the best health delivery systems in the world. By opting not to benefit from the well-meaning and generous Cuban offer, Pakistan would be depriving its hapless earthquake affectees of an opportunity to benefit from badly needed medical treatment at the hands of men and women who have worked in places hit by natural calamities and epidemics. Rather it would be cruel to ask President Castro not to send Cuban doctors to Pakistan, or dispatch only 50. We need each one of those 200 Cuban doctors waiting to fly to Pakistan for the sake of the thousands of injured quake victims lining up at overcrowded hospitals and losing precious time that could save lives.

 

The writer is an executive editor of The News in Peshawar

---

Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

State and Earthquake Relief Effort

The earthquake disaster is expected to grow with the arrival of winters, if government does not take any substantial measures for the earthquake victims. Snowfall has already been reported from some affected areas. Situation is getting worse with the passage of time due to weather conditions. According to General Musharraf, the death toll is likely to rise beyond 38,000 (http://www.dawn.com/2005/10/16/top1.htm).

"When we go into these villages of the Neelum and Jhelum river valleys, I am reasonably sure it is going to rise," said General Musharraf. The expression that "they" have not reached the villages of Neelum and Jhelum by now gives a very clear impression of the efforts of government.

I am highly impressed by the concern of the general population of Pakistan for the earthquake victims. They have donated generously for the relief efforts. I heard one of my elders mention that such mobilization of people was last seen in 1969, resulting in the resignation of Ayub Khan. However, the role of state has been highly disappointing through out in the last eight or nine days. I do not wish to start blaming at the present but it is truly very frustrating.

With one million organized men under his control, General Musharraf, who also calls himself the President of Pakistan, has not been able to manage the aid collected by the civilians after enormous labor. Army, at present, is the only institution that has the information, means, and resources to deal with the problem of distribution in the affected area in a appropraite manner. No NGO or a political party is in a position as effective as that of army. Yet, there are villages and towns that are not yet touched by the army men. I do not intend to say that army present in the affected areas is not doing anything. But look at their quantity. If General Musharraf had sent around 50-75% of the army on the second day after earthquake, situation might have been different. At least, relief workers in the affected areas would not have asked their counter-parts in the unaffected areas to stop sending aid.

It is inspiring to see that small groups of volunteers have started visiting the earthquake hit areas, knowing that they might not be able to make significant difference. They are obviously not organized as such and lack proper resources and information to deal with the problems. It is the trustless attitude of the people towards the army, that they are undertaking the relief efforts in their own hands.

Comrades, civilians have played and are playing their part in collecting relief goods in a commendable way. The part played by the state is contributing towards the misery of earthquake victims that make them believe that the rest of Pakistan does not care.

General Musharraf should mobilize the army on war scale to deal with the earthquake disaster. That might justify the portion of budget spent on defense each year. The arrival of winters is going to be highly dangerous for those who have no shelter. If something significant is not done immediately, then Musharraf is correct in his "reasonable" analysis that the death toll is going to increase. Isn't this earthquake a loud enough noise to make the deaf hear?

This earthquake is a lesson for the general population of Pakistan. The interests of state are significantly different from that of people. It's a matter of time alone, when the people will rise to over-throw these unconcerned rulers to govern themselves through a people's government.

In Solidarity!

Dialectical and Historical Materialism By J. V. Stalin

Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.

To read the full paper, please visit http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm.