Friday, May 24, 2024

Israel is Losing


Seven months into Israel’s genocide, the US has been forced to shift its position on unconditional support to Israel.


Protest against the attacks on Rafah in New York City. Photo: Wyatt Souers / ANSWER Coalition

Israel is intensifying its assault on Rafah, assassinating civilians, initiating gun violence on the ground, and raining bombs down on the city from the sky. Despite the fact that Hamas agreed to the latest version of the ceasefire proposal—approved by all other parties in the negotiating discussions—Israel has insisted on moving forward with its genocide, setting its sights on the last place of refuge in Gaza and sending out evacuation notices. Israel has refused to accept the ceasefire agreement and is instead continuing its genocidal assault on the Palestinian people.

This turn of events is very clarifying for anyone who may have still had any doubts about the negotiation process thus far. Over the past months, Tel Aviv and Washington DC have insisted on the same narrative–the Palestinians are blocking the negotiations. This is an entirely false narrative, both now and historically. Now the world can see that there’s an actual ceasefire deal that all parties, including the mediation, has approved, and it is Israel who has refused—not the other way around. What this elucidates is that Israel and the United States have never approached the negotiating table in good faith. Many of those who have been part of the student encampments in the past couple of weeks have now had a firsthand experience with negotiations, what it really looks like to “negotiate” with an enemy that has no intention of making any real concessions, and the kind of treacherous proposals that the enemy puts forward. These insulting proposals hardly represent any flexibility towards the demands of the other parties.

This is what has been happening in the negotiations between the Palestinian resistance and Israel. Israel, until now fully backed by the United States, has categorically refused any proposal that would respond to the bare minimum of Hamas’ demands.

This moment has also clarified the role the United States have been playing over the past couple of months, and has demonstrated the instability and contradictory character of the current moment.

The United States has recently taken the position that they oppose the invasion of Rafah and are pushing for a ceasefire agreement. Although this ostensibly is a new position, in practice, it is not necessarily that different from before. In simple terms, if the US actually opposed the invasion of Rafah, Biden could easily and quickly make a phone call– first to the Pentagon, then to Tel Aviv–to end it, employing political, economic, and military force to cut all aid to Israel, stop the invasion, and end the current phase of the war. This would mean a complete reversal of US foreign policy towards Israel until now, and of course, remains an unlikely reality. For example, though the White House has recently paused a shipment of some 3,500 munitions, causing some dismay among the would-be recipients, they continue to provide security assistance. This announcement does not affect the 26 billion dollar aid package signed last month, and the pause is couched with the reassurances that their overall support remains firm. But Biden is signaling, insisting that the US government does not support the operation in Rafah, and that they want a ceasefire to go through. Many of the European Union countries and the international community, both at the geopolitical and the mass movement level, are all against the occupation and invasion of Rafah. And yet, Israel proceeds with its genocide.

Israel is not without its own contradictions–so many, in fact, that it would take many more pages to detail. Some of its own political leaders and members of the ruling class have called for a ceasefire, while others insist on the invasion. Netanyahu clings to extending the war as his only hope to avoid imprisonment. Earlier this week, the families of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza released a statement demanding that Netanyahu accept the ceasefire agreement in order for their family members to be released, and threatened to burn the country down if it didn’t happen. Despite internal political division, Israel has still backtracked on the negotiations and proceeded with attacking Rafah, risking the stability it enjoyed in its relationship with the United States and claiming they are ready to fight alone.

Israel’s defeat

To fully understand what is happening right now, it is important to contextualize these recent developments and examine how events have unfolded until this moment. The negotiations and the escalation of attacks on Rafah are occuring in a context where Israel is facing very concrete conditions of defeat. This has been true for some time now, but it has never been clearer than this week. And by defeat, we mean very concrete things.

Primarily, they have not achieved their main objective of destroying the military capacity of the Palestinian resistance. The Palestinian resistance continues to both defend and respond to the occupation’s genocidal violence.

The US and Israel have also not managed to contain or dominate the regional resistance against their aggression. In fact, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the many different actors across the region have only intensified their attacks against the occupation. Some weeks ago, Iran successfully launched a historic attack against Israel in response to Israel’s strike on the Iranian embassy in Syria. This targeted attack on Israeli military infrastructure turned the table, making it so that Israeli and US military bases in the region are no longer effective as a force of deterrence, but rather now represent vulnerabilities for imperialism, US empire, and Zionism.

Another very important sign of Israel’s defeat and one that is not often discussed, is that the Israeli genocide and occupation has failed to destroy Palestinian social organizing and the social fabric of Palestinian society in Gaza. Emergency committees are still functioning and are being formed throughout Gaza to make sure that the very little aid that is able to enter can be distributed in an efficient and adequate manner. This is very important—an organized people are much harder to defeat. The Palestinian people, facing the most extreme conditions of famine, genocide, massacre, and complete destruction of their homes, are not only organizing these emergency committees to distribute aid, but are also preparing the evacuated cities, such as Khan Younis and other parts of the North, for the return of their people. This achievement is so incredible that the occupation has started assassinating the organizers of the emergency committees. The Palestinian people’s ability to organize to survive is a threat to the occupation, and proves to be another indicator of Israel’s defeat.

Finally, the social base for Zionism, internally and externally, is almost completely destroyed. Their internal crisis has grown to a magnitude of historic proportions. But the social base for Zionism is not just located in Israel: a lot of the social support for the Zionist project also relies on communities and institutions across the United States, as US imperialism has its own interests in the region. However, the US ruling class is losing control of its own institutions, as seen through the encampments at Columbia University and the uprising of the student movement across the country. Facing a grave crisis of legitimacy, the social base for Zionism, including the bodies that normally fund, promote, and politically support a Zionist narrative, are no longer able to maintain control over that narrative or their own people. As this genocide is not only funded by the United States, but also in many ways engineered and politically backed by the United States, the trajectory of this latest war on the Palestinian people has concrete implications for the US. When Israel faces defeat, so does the United States.

The movement for Palestine has backed Biden into a corner

The United States is wrestling with its own losses in the arena of public opinion, domestically and geopolitically, which should be credited to the mass movement for Palestine that has been not only mobilizing and rejecting the genocide, but building power in the streets every day. Over the past few months, the movement has made it impossible for Biden to get away with giving lip service by simply saying he wants a ceasefire, and waiting for everyone to applaud him. The actions sweeping the US by storm have consistently called for much more concrete demands, demanding all that is possible. It is possible to end the genocide. It is possible to stop the invasion of Rafah. It just takes a decision from the White House to do that.

No one expects the ruling class to be moved by a sense of morality, but they can be moved by political pressure. The continuous mobilizations across the US that have not decreased for over seven months demonstrate to the world how the ruling class has been defeated on the home front. And because they know their public is watching, ready, and mobilized, they are forced to seriously consider the consequences for their foreign policy maneuvers and decisions.

Once again faced with conditions of defeat, the United States wants this phase of the war to end. It is clear that Biden is drawing the line at the invasion of Rafah, not because of a sudden change of heart towards Palestinian lives, but because the White House has lost confidence in Israel’s ability to defeat Hamas by military means. In order to preserve some possibility of achieving their military and economic objectives in the region, they are desperately attempting to stay afloat on the sinking ship that is the Israeli war machine, without abandoning the ship altogether.

The US is also losing favor with its own public at an unprecedented level, and their own interests are faltering as Israel exposes the hypocrisy of US-backed institutions, from corporate media to universities. Biden is hoping to find an exit strategy that can allow him to salvage any semblance of a reputation. The public pressure that the mass movement for Palestine has imposed upon the warmongers in the White House is still growing seven months in. Just last week, tens of thousands of people, students and workers took to the streets on a Wednesday afternoon for May Day, at a time when Biden hoped that people would simply give up and lose steam. The May Day mobilization in New York City, repeated in cities and locales across the world, was indicative of the fact that the struggle for Palestine has sparked a new wave of international solidarity, a global movement that has been raising the class consciousness of people.

A victory for Palestine is a victory for the people of the world

Hundreds of thousands of people across the country, millions across the world, have continued to take to the streets week in and week out. The Palestine movement will continue to do so as it makes demands that stretch far beyond a ceasefire, calling for an end to the occupation and the total liberation of Palestine. In the streets, the working class carries the banner of Palestine, and Palestine carries the banner of the working class. We know that it’s our duty to imagine a better future, and that is something that we must do together.

Just like an Israeli defeat is a US defeat, we know that a Palestinian victory is our victory, it’s the people’s victory. And we also know that this movement did not just appear out of thin air. Over the past seven months, thousands of people have been building their organizations and honing their skills. More and more people are undertaking organizational tasks for the first time, demonstrating the power of an organized movement: they are leading chants with a megaphone, flyering in the subways, organizing protests in their neighborhoods, learning from one another and bringing it back to their communities. People have realized the power they hold and have affirmed day after day that the government does not have their consent to carry on supporting the genocide. The people refuse to be complicit in genocide—the genocide of any oppressed peoples around the world.

This past week, heavy rains poured over Rafah, breaking a persistent heat wave. From our comrades in Rafah, we heard reflections that this fierce oscillation between winter and summer weather conditions was reminiscent of the same whiplash we might all feel from the constant back and forth between the threats of invasion (and increased airstrikes) on Rafah, and the hopes of an adequate ceasefire deal being reached–one that is actually representative of the will of the people.

But in the midst of all of this volatility, there is an unbreakable hope that the end of this war is near, and that the end of this war will bring about a way for the Palestinian people to realize their goals for liberation, for dignity and for true independence. There is immense hope that the end of this war will only further carve a path to total liberation from here on out.

The movement for Palestinian liberation has already accomplished so much. It has made its demands unavoidable. It has made Palestine unavoidable. It has made the situation in the US untenable for the ruling class. And it will continue to do that because the movement has not abandoned its demands for the past seven months, and it has not abandoned them for the past 76 years either.

This week, we commemorate 76 years since the start of the ongoing Nakba, “the catastrophe,” which was the mass dispossession and theft of Palestinian land in 1948. We will commemorate it together with the unwavering commitment that has only been further fortified over the past seven months, we will commemorate it in our speeches, in our protests, in our fundraisers, in our workplaces and institutions. We have not forgotten the Nakba, we will never forget the 40,000 martyrs we have gained over the past seven months, and it is our duty to ensure that the culprits of this genocide cannot forget either.

 Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch




Is Biden Really Against Israel’s Invasion of Rafah?







The US President claims to urge Netanyahu against Rafah invasion, but unconditional support for Israel continues.

Israel’s looming invasion of Rafah has been condemned across the globe. Belgium has announced more sanctions against the Zionist state, while France has labeled the forced displacement of civilians from Rafah a war crime. EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell urged Israel to call off the invasion, stating that “Israel’s evacuation orders to civilians in Rafah portend the worst: more war and famine. It is unacceptable.” South Africa’s foreign ministry has stated it was “horrified” by Israel’s order to evacuate eastern Rafah.

Meanwhile, US President Biden has made a show of urging Netanyahu against invading Rafah, or expressing token concern, but the reality is that the US government continues its unconditional support of Israel every step of the way.

Since Israel announced its forcible displacement of Eastern Rafah early on May 6, Biden’s response has followed the classic formula: circulating stories about his disapproval of Netanyahu’s actions, but making no indication that official policy on Israel would change. Early on, the US expressed its supposed concern regarding the looming invasion of the last refuge for displaced Palestinians. However, privately, US officials told Politico under conditions of anonymity that there would be no US response or change in policy approach if Israel were to invade Rafah.

Israel previously set a pre-Ramadan deadline for the ground invasion, in which it threatened to launch ground attacks if hostages were not released by the beginning of the holiday. This threat was not fulfilled, but the zionist war makers never took the invasion off the table completely.

On April 23, Biden signed a bill into law which would send USD 26 billion to Israel as it continues to commit the crime of genocide in Gaza. Since October 7, the US has quietly flooded millions of dollars of arms into Israel despite mounting pressure from some US officials and the global Palestine solidarity movement.

The US government has also made moves throughout the past six months to silence all criticism of Israel, both inside and outside the country.

Amid reports that the International Criminal Court could issue arrests for top Israeli officials, a group of conservative US Senators have issued a bizarre warning to the court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.

“Target Israel and we will target you,” the senators threaten, warning that they will “sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States.”

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill defining criticism of Israel as antisemitism. US police forces across the country continue to brutalize university students staging encampments or other forms of protest in solidarity with Gaza, deploying mace, flashbang grenades, rubber bullets, and lethal bullets.

Hamas accepts ceasefire deal

On May 6, Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal. In response, Netanyahu has said the deal does not meet Israel’s demands, but has agreed to send a delegation to Cairo to negotiate. According to a Reuters report, an unnamed Israeli official has said that the ceasefire proposal is not acceptable to Israel.

According to Hamas, the deal they agreed to includes a permanent ceasefire, reconstruction, and prisoner exchange between Hamas-held Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.

Al Jazeera reported that only hours earlier, Yoav Gallant told the families of hostages that Hamas had rejected proposals that would lead to the release of captives, and therefore invading Rafah was a necessity.

Families of Israeli hostages have reportedly blocked off major streets in Israel, demanding that their government accept the ceasefire deal.

 

 

Israel’s far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has indicated his rejection of the ceasefire. “Hamas’ exercises and games have only one answer: an immediate order to occupy Rafah! Increasing military pressure, and continuing the complete defeat of Hamas, until its complete defeat,” Ben-Gvir wrote on X.

This puts the ball squarely in Israel’s court in terms of freeing Israeli hostages held in Gaza and ending aggression on the Strip.

Peoples Dispatch 


 

West Bengal: Student Leaders Leading Left Revival in LS Polls


Peoples Dispatch 




In West Bengal, where left parties were elected to rule for over three decades until 2011, over a half dozen young leaders are waging a battle to defeat sectarian, anti-people politics of the right-wing parties



Left Front candidate Dipsita Dhar.

Student leaders are waging a difficult but determined battle to revive the electoral prospect of the left in the ongoing national elections in India. These young politicians have taken up the challenge to put the people’s agenda in front in their electoral campaigns and defeat the right-wing parties.

In West Bengal, the fourth most populous state in India, Dipsita Dhar (30), Srijan Bhattacharya (31) and Pratikur Rahman (33) are three representatives of this young brigade which is putting a spirited fight against both the Trinamool Congress (TMC) ruling the state and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governing at the center.

All of these candidates have been or still are leaders of the student movement and members of left-wing student organizations. They represent the changing expectations of India’s youth and appear to strike a chord with the people. They wish to restore the sanity in politics of the state and defeat the politics of religious and sectarian divide which has been the strategy of the rightward parties.

Read more: Center-left alliance challenges the ruling right alliance in India’s national elections

The essence of their platform is what Mohammad Salim, the state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), calls Haq, Rozi-Roti (Rights, Employment and food). With Haq, Rozi-Roti they seek to combat rising unemployment, lack of basic and adequate public services, and the failure of the state to provide a decent living standard to the majority and curb rising prices and stand for the policies which will bring peace for all.

These young candidates in West Bengal are also pointing out how both right-wing parties are primarily protecting the interest of the few at the cost of many by dividing the majority in the name of caste and religion. They emphasize the need for working class unity in the state which they allege has seen a complete failure of governance in the last decade. So far, their campaign has managed to generate enthusiasm and optimism, with many suggesting that the Left may see a significant comeback, not seen since its 2011 upset in West Bengal.

Reviving the Left in Bengal

West Bengal is one of the largest provinces in India with a population of over 90 million as per the 2011 census. It has 42 seats in the Lok Sabha, the popularly elected lower house of the Indian parliament. This has been one of the strongest bastions of the Left in India, both as a popular movement and in electoral terms.

The Left governed the state for over 34 years, winning six consecutive elections, until 2011.

Following the defeat in 2011, Left has faced a series of challenges in terms of electoral defeats and targeted violence against its cadres by both the TMC and the BJP. The Left has lost hundreds of its cadres in the right-wing violence unleashed in the last decade.

In these elections, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is contesting 22 seats and other left parties are contesting eight. Congress, a centrist party, is part of the nationwide INDIA alliance against the right-wing Narendra Modi led BJP government, is contesting the remaining 12 seats.

Out of these 22 seats, CPI (M) has fielded eight candidates who are below 40 years in age including Dhar, Bhattacharya and Rahman. All three of them are affiliated to the Student Federation of India (SFI), the student wing of the party and India’s largest left-wing student organization.

Dhar is currently getting her PhD at the Center for the Study of Regional Development at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Since starting her studies, she has been an active student leader and is currently the All India Joint Secretary of SFI.

Dhar is contesting the Srirampur Lok Sabha constituency where polling is scheduled to be held on May 20 during the fifth phase of India’s seven-phase national election. She is pitted against two-time sitting Member of Parliament (MP) Kalyan Banarjee from the TMC.

During her campaign Dhar has emphasized that her fight is a part of the larger struggle of the left. This includes the struggle to create democratic space, especially in West Bengal where this space has been compromised due to violence unleashed by the TMC. Dhar has also highlighted the need for the revival of the industrial base in the state so that more jobs are created and people do not have to migrate to find jobs. There is a need to fight against the sectarian divide as well which is created by the TMC and BJP for their electoral purposes, she says.

Dipsita, like most of the other young candidates in the state, participated in mass canvassing in the 2021 state assembly elections. Thus, this year’s candidates are already familiar with the people in their respective constituencies and have an established rapport with them.

Srijan Bhattacharya is contesting from Jadavpur which will vote on June 1. He is the former West Bengal secretary of the SFI.

Prateekur Rahman, the candidate for Diamond Harbour, is the present national vice president of the SFI. Rahaman is contesting against the heavyweight TMC leader Abhishek Banarjee. Diamond Harbour also votes on June 1 in the last phase of the elections.

In his campaign, Rahman has focused on the issues related to farmers, pointing out that the TMC and BJP have implemented anti-farmers policies and have not provided them relief amidst the rising costs of food production and lack of adequate prices of their produce in the market. Rahman himself has faced numerous violent attacks from the ruling TMC cadres.

Nearly 11 Years After Rationalist Dabholkar was Shot Dead in Pune, 2 Get Life Imprisonment 

Narendra Dabholkar’s killing in cold blood on the morning of August 20, 2013, when he was out on a morning walk in Pune had shocked and shattered the country. The first of four rationalist murders planned and execusted by the ultra right wing, Sanatan Sanstha, Dabholkar, a keen crusader and leader of the anti-sperstition movement in Maharashtra fell victim to four rounds that were fired at him at close range. Two bullets hit his head while one hit his chest, killing him instantly. A probe by the CBI revealed that his murder was planned by a Hindu group called Sanatan Sanstha.



Newsclick Report 





The founder of Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti was gunned down by two bike-borne men linked with Hindu radical outfit, Sanatan Sanstha.

New Delhi: Close to 11 years after rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, 67. was gunned down in broad daylight in Pune by two persons with alleged links with Goa-based Hindu radical outfit, Sanatan Sanstha, a special court in Pune convicted two alleged assailants, Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar, to life imprisonment on Friday. The other three accused were set free due to lack of evidence.

According to an Indian Express report, “the court acquitted ENT surgeon Dr Virendrasinh Tawade, a Mumbai-based lawyer Sanjeev Punalekar and his aide Vikram Bhave for the lack of evidence.” Tawade was the alleged mastermind of the killing.

Dabholkar, founder of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, was shot dead by two bike-borne while on a morning walk in Pune on August 20, 2013. He was a part of the movement for developing scientific temper and reason, which posed a firm challenge to the narratives being peddled by the current regime. All his life, he fought against and raised awareness against superstition and black magic, caste-based division and fanaticism.

Dhabolkar’s murder was not an isolated incident. Communist leader Govind Pansare was killed in Kolhapur in 2015, author MM Kalburgi in Dharwad, Karnataka in 2015 and journalist Gauri Lankesh in Bengaluru in 2017 were assassinated, soon after, for similar reasons. All the targeted killing had led to widespread outrage.

According to an earlier report by news agency PTI, the High Court has been monitoring the probe since 2014 after which it was handed over to the CBI, with the agency submitting periodical reports to the court.

After the HC said last year that no further monitoring was required in the probe and disposed of the petition filed by Dabholkar's daughter, Mukta Dabholkar, seeking that the court continue monitoring of the case

It was the CBI that had charge-sheeted five accused in the case.

As per the Indian Express report, the special court in Pune had on September 15, 2021 framed charges against five accused, marking the beginning of the trial.

“All the five accused had pleaded not guilty to charges against them. While Tawade, Andure and Kalaskar are currently in prison, Bhave and Punalekar have been out on bail”, said the report.

Incidentally, in 2019, NDTV report said that in a “chilling” 14-page-confession, Kalaskar had admitted to being linked to two other murders –- that of Pansare and Lankesh.

He also admitted to having shot twice at Dabholkar, in a 14-page confession statement to the Karnataka Police, as per the then NDTV report.


Murder of a Rationalist: Pune Court Slams Bid to ‘Finish Off Dabholkar’s Ideology’



Sabrang India 


Close to 11 years after anti-superstition activist and crusader Dabholkar was shot dead in cold blood during a morning walk, a Pune court has flagged serious lapses in the probe conducted by the Maharashtra police and the CBI.

Over a decade after the tragic murder of rationalist Narendra Achyut Dabholkar, a special CBI Court in Pune on May 10 sentenced his assailants Sachin Prakashrao Andure and Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar to life imprisonment for murder. A fine of ₹5 lakh was also imposed.  The court however, acquitted three other accused — alleged mastermind Virendrasinh Sharadchandra Tawade, lawyer Sanjeev Punalekar and his assistant Vinay Bhave due to the failure of both the Maharashtra police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to procure sufficient evidence.

Harsh words and comments on the conduct of the probe by India’s prime investigative agency, the CBI can be found in the 171 page judgement. While castigating the approach of the defence that has brazenly attempted to justify the killing labelling him “anti-Hindu”, the Court recognised the “pre-planning” behind the daylight assassination by “masterminds.” “Unfotunately,” however, states the court, “the prosecution has failed to unmask those master minds. “An overall shoddy and lackadaisical approach on the evidence gathering by the CBI, including the failure to establish the veracity of the confessional statement of Sharad Kalaskar recorded under the KCOC Act, ensured that such evidence could not be considered.”

“In the present case, the CBI ought to have carried out detailed investigation in that angle… The main master mind behind the crime is someone else. Pune police as well as CBI has failed to unearth those master minds. They have to introspect whether it is their failure or deliberate inaction on their part due to influence by any person in powers.” [Para 108, Page 160]

Sessions Judge Prabhakar P. Jadhav therefore concluded that that while the two convicts executed the murder, “the main mastermind behind the crime is someone else”. The two convicts hail from Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar (then called Aurangabad district) in Maharashtra. Andure worked as an accountant in a private shop and Kalaskar was a farmer.

The 69-year-old Dabholkar was shot dead on August 20, 2013, by two motorcycle-borne assailants on the Omkareshwar bridge near Pune’s Shanivar Peth area when he was out on a morning walk. Dabholkar’s murder along with three other similar murder cases — that of veteran communist leader and trade unionist, Govind Pansare (February 2015), cholar of Kannada, MM Kalburgi (August 2015) and Bengauluru based journalist, Gauri Lankesh(September 2017) had sparked prrotest and national outrage against the targeting of critics of Hindutva and campaigners against superstition and orthodoxy. Activists and stakeholders over the years have demanded a probe into the possibility of a common conspiracy on the ground that the pattern of execution of the killings were similar.

The judgement is a slight setback to the conclusion of investigators in Maharashtra and Karnataka that a right-wing organisation called Sanatan Sanstha was commonly behind the heinous murder of ideological adversaries between 2013 and 2017, although the question is still alive in three other ongoing murder trials.

Virendrasinh Tawde, an otolaryngologist associated with the Sanstha’s activities, is the one acquitted of the conspiracy charge. He was an aggressive opponent of Dabholkar and his Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti Maharashtra, an organisation campaigning against superstitions. Despite the court finding that Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar, young men associated with the Sanstha, were the ones who shot dead the 69-year-old Dabholkar in Pune, it criticised the failure to “unmask the masterminds”. This meant that the role of the Sanatan Sanstha is yet to be legally established in this case, although the court has noted the manner in which the defence lawyers sought to tarnish the image of Dabholkar and his activities.

Additional Sessions Judge P.P. Yadav’s 171-page judgment points out that the existence of a motive will be insufficient to prove a conspiracy, and that reliable and direct evidence is required to show that the accused had acted on the motive. However, the judge does find it strange that the defence was seeking to establish during cross-examination of witnesses that the victim was “anti-Hindu”.

The Sanatan Sanstha’s role, according to investigators in Maharashtra and Karnataka, was seen in the murders of Govind Pansare, a leftist leader at Kolhapur in Maharashtra (2015), academician M.M. Kalburgi (Dharwad, 2015) and journalist Gauri Lankesh (Bengaluru, 2017).

In fact, it was a ballistics analysis of the gun used to kill Lankesh – by the SIT appointed by the Karnataka government – that disclosed that it was the same weapon used in the murder of Kalburgi. Several common features in the four murders have so far been unearthed, leading the police to conclude that a single syndicate has been active in seeking to eliminate adversaries. The governments in Maharashtra and Karnataka must show greater political will in combating such threats to independent thinkers and activists.

Narendra Dabholkar a crusader leader and activist

Dabholkar was a physician, activist, rationalist and author based in Maharashtra. He founded the Committee for the Eradication of Blind Faith (Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, or MANS) after leaving his decade-long medical practice. He was also the editor of the weekly Marathi magazine Sadhana which championed liberal thought and scientific temperament. As a prominent crusader against religious superstitions, he was highly critical of godmen who promised “miracle cures” to ailments.

Dabholkar also spent decades advocating for a law to ban fraudulent and exploitative superstitious practices and played a crucial role in drafting the Andhashraddha Nirmulan Bill, 2005 (Anti-Superstition Bill) which was pending before the Maharashtra legislature at the time of his death. This law was opposed by various organisations and political parties for being “anti-Hindu”. In a twist of welcome irony, it was finally passed as an ordinance on August 24, 2013 — days after Dabholkar’s death. In December of that year, the State legislature passed the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifive and Other Inhuman, evil and Abhorrent Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.

The investigation and case

Over the past decade, various investigating agencies have handled the case starting from the Pune police to the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS). In 2014, the CBI took over the case following a Bombay High Court direction. The next year, the High Court began monitoring the probe after  members of Dabholkar’s family complained that there that there had been no progress in the investigation. It was only last year that the Court  decided to discontinue monitoring after expressing some satisfaction with the way the trial was progressing. of the trial.

On Friday, May 10, Sachin Prakashrao Andure and Sharad Bhausaheb Kalaskar were convicted under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with charges under the Indian Arms Act, 1959. However, the rest of the three accused were acquitted of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy).

During the proceedings, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses which included various close associates of the Sanatan Sanstha, an extreme right-wing Hindu organisation which had expressed strong opposition to the 2005 Anti-Superstition Bill spearheaded by Dabholkar. The Court identified this enmity as the primary motive for the murder. Other witnesses included Dabholkar’s son Hamid and activists from the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti.

The first accused in the case, ENT surgeon Virendrasinh Tawde, was arrested in June 2016 with the CBI claiming that he was a coordinator for Sanatan Sanstha in Kolhapur and had personal differences with Dabholkar. Before his arrest in this case, Tawade had also been arrested by the Maharashtra police for the murder of CPI leader, Govind Pansare. The CBI charge sheet stated that he was the “mastermind” of the conspiracy to commit the murder.

The two convicted assailants — Andure and Kalaskar were arrested only in 2018 when their role in the murder of Gauri Lankesh came up. The ATS apprehended the duo with the help of Karnataka Police’s Special Investigation Team (SIT). They were subsequently named in a supplementary charge sheet filed in February 2019. Eventually, in May 2019, Mumbai-based lawyer Sanjeev Punalekar was arrested along with his close aide Vikram Bhave who was earlier convicted for his role in the 2008 Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre bomb blast in Thane. All the accused were allegedly linked to the Sanatan Sanstha.

According to the CBI, Bhave reportedly participated in a recce along with Andure and Kalaskar about 15 days before the murder. In its charge sheet, the agency claimed that Punalekar had advised Kalaskar to destroy the firearms used in multiple murders – including that of Dabholkar and Gauri Lankesh. On Punalekar’s instructions, Kalaskar had allegedly thrown four country-made pistols into a creek near Thane on July 7, 2018. However, the agency later told the trial Court that efforts to recover the murder weapon had been unsuccessful!

It was on September 15, 2021 that charges were framed against the five accused by the special CBI Court marking the beginning of the trial.

The verdict

In its detailed 171 page judgement the Court has called out the CBI for a failure to investigate thoroughly, a lackadaisical approach to the gathered evidence, ensuring that the “masterminds” are not nabbed and that conspiracy is not proven. “The murder is committed with very well-prepared plan, which is executed by accused Nos. 2 (Andure) and 3 (Kalaskar). Considering the economic and social status of the accused Nos. 2 and 3, they are not the masterminds of the crime. The main mastermind behind the crime is someone else. Pune police as well as CBI has failed to unearth those master minds. They have to introspect whether it is their failure or deliberate inaction on their part due to influence by any person in powers”, it underscored.

Emphasising further that Tawade, Punalekar and Bhave were being acquitted only due to the shoddy investigation conducted by the CBI, the Court observed — “There is evidence of motive for murder of Dr Narendra Dabholkar against accused No.1 Dr Virndrasinh Tawde. There is reasonable suspicion against accused No. 4. Sanjiv Punalekar and accused No.5. Vikram Bhave, showing their involvement in the present crime. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 by leading reliable evidence to convert motive and suspicion into the form of evidence showing their involvement in the crime.” Accordingly, terror charges under Section 16 of the UAPA and charges of criminal conspiracy were dropped against the three accused.

The Court also criticised the Maharashtra state authorities for procedural lapses in obtaining appropriate sanction orders for the prosecution of the acquitted accused under the UAPA. The Rules prescribed for the law mandate that the competent authority must submit its recommendation for sanction to the Central or State Government within seven working days of receiving evidence gathered by the investigating officer. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that Shirish Nagorao Mohod, then Deputy Secretary and Sanjay Kumar Shyamkishor Prasad, then Additional Chief Secretary of the Mumbai Home Department had failed to process the sanction orders on time. [Paras 65-66, Pages 115-116]

“Considering the status of deceased this case is of national importance. Despite the said fact, casual and negligent approach of PW15 (Shirish Nagorao Mohod) and PW19 (Sanjay Kumar Shyamkishor Prasad), is not only shocking but requires condemnation. It shows that even through this case is of national importance, officers on high posts PW15 and PW19 have not shown utmost care and caution expected from them.”State of Maharashtra v. Virendrasinh Tawde and Ors (2024)Sessions Case No.706/2016

“Present case is very serious and is of national importance. Not only, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar is assassinated but an attempt is made to finish his ideology”, judge Jadhav critically noted. He also implicated Sanatan Sanstha and its affiliates—Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, Warkari Sampraday, and others for “nurturing bitter enmity against” the rationalist. [Para 72, Page 125]

The Court also expressed serious reservations over the conduct of defence counsels during the proceedings. It pointed out how attempts were made to imply that Dabholkar was “hated” because he had “insulted Hindu gods”. Calling this approach “very strange and is condemnable”, the Court further highlighted, “The charge sheeted accused and defence counsels have not merely attempted to raise the defence. From unnecessary and irrelevant lengthy cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and even in final argument, an attempt is made to tarnish image of the deceased. At the same time, the approach of the defence was to justify the killing of the deceased Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, by labelling him as anti-Hindu.”

After perusing the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the Court concluded that Andure and Kalaskar had indeed shot Dabholkar dead.

The battle for justice continues

Speaking to the media the day of the judgement, son and daughter of Dabholkar, Hamid and Mukta, stated that the conviction of Andure and Kalaskar had reaffirmed their faith in the judiciary but they intended to appeal against the acquittals of the other five accused.

“We are satisfied that the two accused have been convicted and sentenced to life, but the masterminds also need to be punished. We are determined to pursue justice and take the case to the Supreme Court. The charge sheets, including those related to murders of Govind Pansare, M.M. Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh reveal alarming connections, indicating a broader conspiracy spanning multiple cases. All the cases have a common thread, which is what investigation agencies have been saying. Until the conspirator in all these cases is apprehended, the safety of all rationalists remains in jeopardy.”

The judgement may be read here:

Courtesy: sabrang India



Liberalism in a Quandary


Prabhat Patnaik 



The roots of the crisis of liberalism, as an alternative non-socialist path to human freedom, lie in the phenomenon of globalisation.

Each strand of political praxis is informed by a political philosophy which analyses the world around us, especially, in modern times, its economic characteristics. On the basis of this analysis, the particular political philosophy sets out the objectives which have to be struggled for, and the political praxis informed by it carries out this struggle.

The objective may be difficult to achieve, more difficult in certain contexts than in others, and this difficulty may act as a hurdle for political praxis; but this does not constitute a crisis for that political philosophy. The sheer difficulty of achieving an objective does not constitute a crisis. A crisis of a political philosophy arises when it has an internal contradiction, when the objective it puts forward is logically in conflict with some other feature in which it believes.

Many would argue that the objective of socialism that the political philosophy, Marxism, puts forward, has in the present context become somewhat more difficult to achieve. But this, while explaining the present weakening of the Left, does not constitute any crisis for Marxism.

The political philosophy called liberalism, however, is facing a crisis in the sense that the objective it puts forward for the achievement of what it perceives as human freedom, is logically impossible to achieve in a world which liberalism itself holds dear. In other words, there is a logical contradiction within itself which has arisen in the course of the development of the economy and to which it has no answer. The crisis that liberalism faces is of this nature.

Modern liberalism was developed in response to the Bolshevik Revolution during the capitalist crisis of the inter-war period, as a way of resolving that crisis, and other similar crises that could arise in future, without transcending capitalism. It believed that the combination of Western-style liberal democracy and capitalism tempered by State intervention, provided the best framework for achieving human freedom.

It believed that under the institutions of Western-style liberal democracy, the State, far from being a class State, would express social “rationality”, and would do so better than under any other institutional framework. Hence, such a liberal democratic State can intervene in the economy both to rectify any malfunctioning that may arise because of the spontaneous working of capitalism, and also to make this spontaneous working, even when it is not a case of malfunctioning, conform to the demands of social rationality.

This version of liberalism, in whose formation the English economist John Maynard Keynes had played a major role and which Keynes had called “new liberalism”, differed from earlier versions of liberalism in so far as those earlier versions had wanted State intervention to be kept to a minimum, in the erroneous belief, that had prevailed earlier, that the capitalist economy always operated at “full employment”.

This new version of liberalism, even if we do not go into its validity within the institutional framework it envisages (and it is utterly invalid, among other things, because of the phenomenon of imperialism which it does not even cognise), certainly ceases to be valid when capital, including finance, gets globalised. This is because we do not in this case have a nation-State presiding over capital that is essentially national, but a nation-State confronting globalised capital. And in any such confrontation, the nation-State must yield to the demands of globalised capital for fear of triggering a capital flight, which means, as even the most ardent “new liberal” would admit, that the State cannot possibly act as the embodiment of social rationality.

Put differently, the presumption behind “new liberalism” was that the domain over which the writ of the State ran and the domain over which the capital originating in that country operated, more or less coincided. This was, in fact, the case when Keynes was writing and even later. But with increasing globalisation of capital, this presumption loses its validity. And when this happens, then it is unreal even to pretend that the executive of the State would be goaded by public opinion to act in ways that it thinks are socially rational, irrespective of whether globalised capital concurs with such action.

The roots of the crisis of liberalism, therefore, lie in the phenomenon of globalisation; but this crisis clearly manifests itself in the period of crisis of neo-liberalism when large-scale mass unemployment appears on the scene, which was exactly what Keynes thought was the Achilles heel of capitalism that, unless overcome though State intervention, would make the system vulnerable to Bolshevik-style revolution.

The pursuit of Keynesian “demand management” that was supposed to overcome the crises of overproduction that plagued capitalism, requires that larger State expenditure, the panacea for the crisis, should be financed either by raising more taxes at the expense of the rich or by raising no extra taxes at all, that is, through a larger fiscal deficit: larger State expenditure financed by raising more tax revenue at the expense of the working people who consume much of their incomes anyway, would not add to aggregate demand and hence would not alleviate the crisis.

But these two ways of financing additional State expenditure, taxing the rich and increasing the fiscal deficit, are both opposed by globalised finance capital which, therefore, eliminates the scope for any fiscal intervention by the State against the crisis. It can, of course, intervene through monetary instruments but these, as is well-known, are extremely blunt, often encouraging inflation that compounds the crisis, rather than stimulating larger private spending.

Within neo-liberalism, therefore, there is no way of overcoming the crisis; Keynes’s “new liberalism” comes a cropper. The cul-de-sac or dead end of the neo-liberal economic regime, therefore, becomes a crisis for the political philosophy of liberalism.

This entry into the economic cul-de-sac can be illustrated with the example of Europe. Until the mid-seventies, the unemployment rate in European Union countries (15 members at the time) had been less than 3% for a long period. It started climbing in the late seventies and the eighties as globalisation proceeded, and has remained roughly above 7% on average since then, though with variations between countries; and State intervention has been unable to bring it down.

Since a single nation-State cannot intervene to boost aggregate demand and reduce unemployment when confronted with globalised capital, the country can either impose capital controls to get out of the vortex of globalised finance altogether, or have a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus along with other countries. In which case, capital’s tendency to fly out of any country that expands demand can be checked (since all countries would be following a similar policy of expanding State expenditure).

The first of these entails getting out of the neo-liberal regime: capital controls would also necessitate, sooner or later, trade controls, and this means that the basic character of a neo-liberal regime, namely relatively unrestricted flows of capital and goods and services, would be infringed. International finance capital will oppose this tooth and nail, so that such a course would require an alternative class mobilisation that cannot remain confined to a programme of preserving monopoly capitalism.

The second of these routes, if it is to be a genuinely coordinated fiscal stimulus across all countries, requires a degree of internationalism that capitalism, with its in-built tendency for dominating the periphery, is incapable of demonstrating. It can, therefore, at best introduce a coordinated fiscal stimulus within the metropolis even while imposing fiscal austerity on the periphery, which would mean a tightening of imperialism.

Capitalism may well try this, but such a tightening of imperialism cannot be acknowledged by liberalism as a feather in its cap; on the contrary, it would mean a defeat of liberalism as it presents itself, namely, as an alternative non-socialist path to human freedom.

It is this predicament of liberalism that constitutes its crisis. It cannot claim that freedom is possible within capitalism when there is large-scale unemployment which also keeps wages down, causing a general stagnation or worsening in the condition of labour. It cannot overcome this material reality without transcending neo-liberal capitalism, the requisite class alliance for which would carry the economy beyond capitalism itself. (The talk of retreating to a pre-neoliberal capitalism is analogous to the talk of returning to an always mythical ‘free competition capitalism’ as a means of doing away with the ills of monopoly capitalism, that Lenin had pilloried in his book Imperialism). Any acquiescence in a coordinated fiscal stimulus among metropolitan countries alone for reducing unemployment that leaves out the periphery from its ambit, amounts to a betrayal of what liberalism claims it stands for.

Classical liberalism had come to grief during the Great Depression. Keynesian, or new liberalism, has come to grief with the crisis of neo-liberalism. And there are no other versions of liberalism that are available, or even possible, which can take economies out of their current stagnation while keeping them confined to their capitalist integument.