Friday, May 24, 2024

 

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.

Ecological Crisis and the Role of the Working Class

Rana Mitra | 01 May 2024


The agents of such a holistic revolution to save Mother Earth are not simply the working class in a traditional economic sense, but also the ‘ecological proletariat’, a dedicated army of an ecologically conscious working class.





“Give back the wilderness, take away the cities

Embrace if you will your steel, brick and stonewalls

O new-fangled civilisation! Cruel all-consuming one,

Return all sylvan, secluded, shaded and sacred spots

And traditions of innocence. Come back evenings

When herds returned suffused in evening light,

Serene hymns were sung, paddy accepted as alms

And bark-clothes worn. Rapt in devotion,

One meditated on eternal truths then single-mindedly.

No more stonehearted security or food fit for kings –

We’d rather breathe freely and discourse openly!

We’d rather get back the strength that we had,

Burst through all barriers that hem us in and feel

This boundless Universe’s pulsating heartbeat!”

— Rabindranath Tagore, “Sabhyatar Prati” (To Civilisation), Chaitali, 19 Chaitra, 1302 (Bengali calendar)

(Translated in Fakrul Alam and Radha Chakraborty edited The Essential Tagore, Kolkata, Visva-Bharati Edition, 2011)

This was the earnest appeal of Rabindranath Tagore to humanity to save civilisation from capitalist greed and stop the ruthless plunder of nature some 129 years ago.

Doubtlessly, the appeal was draped in a tinge of idealism, but it holds, in essence, humanity’s urge to go back to basics, where exploitation of men and nature, as it is witnessed now, was unthinkable in a somewhat primitive society (you can take it as symbolic of society in ‘primitive communism’ in the language of Marx).

Needless to say, we are now on the cusp of an environmental crisis of previously unheard-of magnitude due to the ever-insatiable greed of capitalists (more so in the current neo-liberal era) to exploit and plunder men and women’s labour power on one hand and natural resources on the other.

This mad rush is to create and then appropriate ‘surplus’ (read profit) of gigantic proportions.

This essentially results in colossal exploitation of labour, giving rise to inequality of wealth and income of gargantuan proportion, in the world in general and India in particular now, compared to any time in history.


We are now on the cusp of an environmental crisis of previously unheard-of magnitude due to the ever-insatiable greed of capitalists to exploit and plunder labour power on one hand and natural resources on the other.

This essentially creates a ‘metabolic rift’ (in the words of Marx), rocking harmonious metabolic interactions between humans and nature.
Metabolic rift: A centrality of Marxist understanding of ecology

There has been a growing body of research in the last few decades from leading social scientists, researchers and natural scientists, who now look to Karl Marx again to understand and decipher the central logic and code of destruction of nature by capitalists in diabolic tandem with the exploitation of labour in the neo-liberal era.

Hence, boundless, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and exploitation of labour form a ‘coherent whole’ in the project of capitalism. There is an insatiable greed among capitalists for mammoth profits even if it means a bleak future for Mother Earth.

Fortunately, now these significant research outputs drive out a false belief, nurtured for long by anti-Marxists and some ‘Green’ activists alike, about Marx being only ‘Promethean’ in a sense that he was enamoured with capitalism’s almost limitless ability to increase output through technological upgradation boundlessly without a critique.

One of the reasons for such misinterpretation of Marx springs from the fact that Marx could not finish Capital in his lifetime. It is well known now that Marx eagerly studied natural sciences in his late years with broken health and facing untold economic and political sufferings.

Hence, he could not fully assimilate his new findings and research into Capital. Interestingly, he planned to elaborate and integrate his path-breaking theorisation on ecology in Volume III of Capital, especially in rewriting his theory of ground rent.

However, most unfortunately for humanity, he could never make it very far, as even Volume II of Capital was not published in his lifetime. However, it is a matter of great fortune for the entire body of human knowledge that Marx did leave a number of notebooks on natural sciences.

Unfortunately, no one paid any serious attention to these notebooks and they remained unpublished for a long time. But now Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) has published them and so have other research institutions worldwide.

We now know with fair details that Marx amply recognised the destructive power of capital and pointed out the disruptions in the universal metabolism of Nature that weaken material conditions for free and sustainable human development.


Boundless, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and exploitation of labour form a ‘coherent whole’ in the project of capitalism.

Marx brilliantly analysed how the logic of capital, in quest of super-profit through over-exploitation of natural resources, disengages from the natural cycle.

This gives birth to various disharmonies in the metabolic interactions between humans and Nature. Marx specifically analysed this problem with reference to Justus von Liebig’s critique of modern robbery agriculture, known as Raubbau.

The analysis essentially zeroes in on a productive pattern of modern agriculture (now more so in the neo-liberal era under corporatisation of agriculture) that takes as much nutrition as possible from the soil without returning it.

Raubbau, as evident more so now, is driven purely by profit maximisation, which is totally out of sync with the material conditions of the soil for sustainable production.

This essentially gives rise to an unbridgeable hiatus between capital’s valorisation (increase in the value of capital assets through the application of value-forming labour in production) and Nature’s metabolism.

This is the precise reason for ‘metabolic rifts’ in mankind’s interactions with the environment. Interestingly enough, though Marx in Capital mainly reflected upon the problem of the metabolic rift in relation to soil degradation, it is nonetheless important and obligatory on our part to expand its scope and breadth to try to use it as an essential tool to analyse such rift in other spheres of capitalist production.

Marx himself had tried it successfully as a tool to analyse the ongoing environmental crisis in his late years, in studying deforestation and livestock farming.

This unique tool of metabolic rift has since been applied most successfully by experts such as Stefano B. Longo and Brett Clark on marine sociology, Ryan Gunderson on livestock agribusiness, Del Weston on climate change and above all by John Bellamy Foster applying tools of Marxist political economy in ecological problems.
Pioneering role of Soviet ecology: An almost forgotten chapter of history

Renowned Soviet scientists, geologists such as E.V. Shantser, Aleksei Petrovich Pavlov and many others like them made pioneering contributions to human ecology, especially in coining words such as ‘anthropocene’ or ‘anthropogene’ in 1922, much earlier than the development of such understanding in the realm of Western scientific community.

Aleksei Pavlov first used the word ‘anthropocene’ to refer to a new geological period in which mankind appeared as the main driver of planetary ecological change. Pavlov’s understanding was very closely connected with another landmark publication known as The Biosphere in 1926 by V.I. Vernadsky, which constituted an early proto-Earth system analysis that focused on the biogeochemical cycles of the planet.

Both Pavlov and Vernadsky strongly focused on the anthropogenic factors that had come to dominate the biosphere. All these path-breaking analyses of the Soviet scientists were based strictly on the dialectical materialist approach, which was initially spurned by the Western scientific community, barring some few notable exceptions such as John Desmond Bernal, J.B.S. Haldane, et al, who too based their scientific approach on the same foundational platform.

Most interestingly, Western science began to assimilate the concept of biosphere changes only in the early 1970s, in which decade appeared the Club of Rome’s famous study, known as, The Limits of Growth. This ultimately gave rise to Earth system science that extended beyond the concept of biosphere.


One of the reasons for such misinterpretation of Marx springs from the fact that Marx could not finish Capital in his lifetime.

Now, when we have crossed almost two and half decades of the twenty-first century, the new Earth system analysis is reflected more on the consequences of stepping out of ‘planetary boundaries’, mirrored through catastrophic climate changes, ozone layer depletion, ocean acidification, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, disappearing ground cover that includes deforestation, diminishing freshwater supplies, etc.

In other words, these calamitous threats to the global environment are conceived in terms of crossing ‘planetary boundaries’, separating the Holocene Epoch in the geological time scale from Anthropocene Epoch.

On all these, the holistic approach of Soviet ecology had pioneered in not only the mitigation efforts but the connection of the anthropogenic problems with the overall capitalist mode of production much earlier than when the problems were even conceptualised by the Western scientific community.
The Great Stalin Plan for the transformation of nature

The principal Marxist understanding on which this great plan rested was known as “Zapovednik”, which quintessentially meant nature reserves for scientific research while expanding them further to protect the environment.

This was spawned especially in the aftermath of the mammoth destruction of men, materials and environment during the Second World War and gave rise in 1948 to the Great Stalin Plan for the transformation of nature.

This is one of the greatest efforts launched in human history to reverse anthropogenic regional climate change in deforested areas, with an emphasis on the promotion of watersheds.

As noted even by John Bellamy Foster (an otherwise strong critique of Stalin) in his seminal work, Capitalism in the Anthropocene, in 1936 itself, the Soviet government led by Stalin created the ‘main administration for forest protection and afforestation’, which established water protective forests in wide belts across the country.

While forests in parts of the Soviet Union were exploited for industrial use, the best old-growth forests of the Russian heartland were consciously protected with ecological concerns given priority.


Marx brilliantly analysed how the logic of capital, in quest of super-profit through over-exploitation of natural resources, disengages from the natural cycle.

This eventually created a total forest preserve of the size of France that grew over time to the size of Mexico, i.e., almost two-thirds of the total land mass of the United States of America. This plan also embodied six million hectares (15 million acres) of plantation of fresh forest that constituted the world’s first explicit attempt to reverse human-induced climate change.

However, after the death of Stalin, this plan was partly abandoned though more than a million hectares of trees had already been planted. Soviet ecology again revived its glorious tradition in the 1960s with the famous scientist, Budyko’s ‘Energy Balance Models’ that soon became the basis of all complex climate modeling.
Three contradictions of capitalism: Pushing the world to the brink of disaster

Leading Marxist ecological scholars such as James O’Connor and Costas Panayotakis have developed the second and third contradiction thesis of capitalism, particularly from an ecological standpoint, expanding from the first basic one conceptualised by Marx.

The first central contradiction of capitalism is between ‘forces’ and ‘relations’ of production, that is the driving force of history. This basic contradiction refers to the tendency of capitalist economic development to be interrupted by economic crises sprouting from the difficulty in realising ‘surplus value’ generated by capitalist exploitation of labour.

In sync with this, O’Connor developed the idea of the second contradiction from an ecological angle, which is developed between ‘capitalist production relations’ (and productive forces) and ‘conditions of capitalist production’.

Since the mid-1970s, there has been a perceptible scenario of the intermittent slow growth of worldwide market demand, despite the ascendency of neo-liberalism in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to capitalism’s failed attempt to sustain growth momentum due to over-exploitation of labour.

This has led capital to attempt to restore profit both by raising the rate of exploitation of labour while simultaneously depleting and exhausting natural resources beyond sustainable levels, and exponential growth of financialisation of the economy.

These desperate responses of capitalism to sustain profit rate aggravate further both the first and second contradictions, as intensified exploitation and growing inequalities (that have taken colossal proportions worldwide) reduce the final demand of consumer and other commodities.

This harming and over-exploitation of natural resources beyond sustainable levels will further reduce the ‘productivity of conditions of production’, thereby raising the average cost of production.

Ironically, finding no other avenue, capitalism tries to solve the puzzle of the first and second contradiction through technological innovation. The third contradiction of capitalism takes its root here.

As is evident, despite prodigious levels of growth of technology developed by capitalism, the system, especially in the neo-liberal era now, shows its inability to translate such development into a richer and more satisfying life for humanity at large.


Both Pavlov and Vernadsky strongly focused on the anthropogenic factors that had come to dominate the biosphere.

This has led many to conclude that this crisis of capitalism has not only an economic dimension, but it carries the baggage of the crisis of ‘legitimation dimension’ too.

This is particularly so as the gigantic strides in labour productivity in the last hundred years or so have failed to translate into shorter working hours, as aspired by the working class some 138 years ago in May, 1886 at HayMarket in Chicago.

This has a special meaning in killing even the creative cultural potential of the society as a whole, as the lack of quality leisure time faced by the working masses worldwide, increases their alienation eventually not only from the means of production but also from quality of cultural output.

They could no longer appreciate excellence of cultural output and become a connoisseur of them, as their shortened leisure time makes them a mechanical audience for cultural output requiring inferior mental faculty.
Climate crisis wow: A clear class bias mediated by global finance capital

As is evident from numerous studies in the last few decades, the global climate crisis, a function of capitalist greed for super-profit, is now fast running out of humanity’s control even when we have the technology and means to mitigate it, if not stamp it out altogether.

A recent study published in Nature on April 17, 2024 says the climate crisis could cost the global economy some US $38 trillion (1 trillion = 1 lakh crore) a year by 2050.

It could shrink the average global income by 19 percent in the next 26 years when compared to what it would have been without global heating caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.

This seminal research was carried out by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). This means that the costs of inaction have already exceeded the costs of limiting global heating to 20C by six times.

However, limiting warming to 20 C can still significantly reduce economic losses through 2100 CE.

Unlike previous studies, the research predicted economic losses for wealthier countries as well in the Global North, with the US and German economies shrinking by 11 percent by mid-century, France’s by 13 percent and the UK’s by 7 percent.

However, the countries set to suffer the most are countries closer to the equator that have lower incomes already and have historically done much less to contribute to the climate crisis. Iraq, for example, could see incomes drop by 30 percent, Botswana 25 percent and Brazil 21 percent.


While forests in parts of the Soviet Union were exploited for industrial use, the best old-growth forests of the Russian heartland were consciously protected with ecological concerns given priority.

“Our study highlights the considerable inequity of climate impacts: We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer,” study co-author Anders Levermann, who leads Research Department Complexity Science at PIK, said in a statement.

“Further temperature increases will, therefore, be most harmful there. The countries least responsible for climate change are predicted to suffer income loss that is 60 percent greater than the higher-income countries and 40 percent greater than higher-emission countries. They are also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts.”

This is especially noteworthy when viewed in the background of the global model of transnational banks’ financing behind fossil fuel production. As of 2022, the world’s 60 biggest banks poured over US $5.5 trillion over seven years into the fossil fuel industry, driving climate chaos and causing deadly local community impacts.

From 2016 (Paris Agreement) to 2022, among the top 12, known as the ‘Dirty Dozen’, JP Morgan Chase financing to the tune of US $434.1 billion, leading the pack of fossil fuel finance, followed by CITI at US $332.9 billion and Wells Fargo at US $316.7 billion, occupy the top three positions.


A recent study published in Nature on April 17, 2024 says the climate crisis could cost the global economy some US $38 trillion (1 trillion = 1 lakh crore) a year by 2050.

This has laid bare the deep interconnection between the global model of finance capital today and the financing pattern behind the climate crisis.
The way forward: Ushering in a new wave of eco-socialism

Writing in Socialism and Ecology in 1989, Paul Sweezy, the celebrated American Marxist and the former editor of Monthly Review, wrote that unless the planning system represented by socialist countries and (in many developing countries) are restored to their preeminent position by which societies could somehow preserve and adapt to serve the needs of new situations, and unless the potential of actually existing socialist societies operating, unlike capitalism, on other bases than simply the pursuit of economic riches, it might simply be too late for civilized humanity to restore the necessary conditions for its own survival.

In countries such as India, currently in the midst of the 18th Lok Sabha elections, we note with dismay the role played by the present dispensations at the Union level and in a few states, where dangerous steps have been initiated recently through amendments of many significant legislations to permit corporate loot of natural resources through bulldozing of legislations in the Parliament without proper debate, viz., Forest Conservation Amendment Bill, 2023, amendment to Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

This can hold a good lesson on the growing climate and ecological challenges faced by the masses. However, without mainstreaming the climate and ecological debates, and adopting a revolutionary approach to ecological challenges, mostly by the progressive, left forces, who are prepared to shun the neo-liberal path, this cannot be achieved.

We have to understand that the present set of the class struggle cannot be successful by simply floating an appeal on economic terms.


Many have concluded that this crisis of capitalism has not only an economic dimension, but it carries the baggage of the crisis of ‘legitimation dimension’ too.

It should increasingly encompass a coherent, harmonious approach even on ecological terms too, that mirrors the fact that it is the social metabolism between humanity and nature (with its all living and non-living elements) that constitutes the most important basis of human advancement through the ages.

The agents of such a holistic revolution to save Mother Earth are not simply the working class in a traditional economic sense, but also the ‘ecological proletariat’, a dedicated army of an ecologically conscious working class. The emancipation from the tyranny perpetrated by the twenty-first-century global finance capital lies in their hands.

Rana Mitra is General Secretary, All India National Bank For Agriculture And Rural Development [NABARD] Employees Association.