Greatest living legend on earth

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Fortunately for the Human race he did not had to die to achieve his ideal.At 92 he is the greatest living legend on earth. He is none other than Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela who celebrated his birthday yesterday.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born on 18 July 1918 in the small village of Mvezo, on the Mbashe River, district of Umtata in Transkei, South Africa. His Father named him Rolihlahla, which means "pulling the branch of the tree", or more colloquially "troublemaker." The name Nelson was given by his first teacher in school.

In 1934 Mandela matriculated from Clarkebury Missionary school. Four years later he graduated from Healdtown, a strict Methodist college, and left to pursue higher education at the University of Fort Hare (South Africa's first university college for Black Africans). It was here he first met his lifelong friend and associate Oliver Tambo.

Both Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo were expelled from Fort Hare in 1940 for political activism. Briefly returning to Transkei, Mandela discovered that his guardian had arranged a marriage for him. He secretly fled from marriage, towards Johannesburg, where he obtained work as a night-watchman on a gold mine.There he met Walter Sisulu and became more active in politics.

Mandela completed his BA and started to study Law.In 1944 he married  Evelyn Mase, a cousin of Walter Sisulu. He also began his political career in earnest, joining the African National Congress, ANC. Finding the existing leadership of the ANC to be "a dying order of pseudo-liberalism and conservatism, of appeasement and compromise.", Mandela, along with Tambo, Sisulu, and a few others formed the African National Congress Youth League, ANCYL. In 1947 Mandela was elected as secretary of the ANCYL, and became a member of the Transvaal ANC executive.

In 1948 the National Party (NP) contested white only national elections with a new policy called apartheid (literally apartness) and narrowly won.. Mandela was “stunned and dismayed” at the NP’s victory.

As the White minority rulers passed more and more laws of repression the youth brigade of ANC had to act.

The existing ANC president was pushed out of office and someone more amenable to the ideals of the ANCYL was brought in as a replacement. Walter Sisulu proposed a 'programme of action', which was subsequently adopted by the ANC. Mandela was made president of the Youth League.

Nelson Mandela opened his law office in 1952, and a few months later teamed up with Tambo to create the first Black legal practice in South Africa. It was difficult for both Mandela and Tambo to find time for both their legal practice and their political aspirations. That year Mandela became president of the Transvaal ANC, but was banned under the Suppression of Communism Act – he was prohibited from holding office within the ANC, banned from attending ANC meetings, and restricted to the district around Johannesburg.

On 26 June,1955 The Congress of the People was convened in Kliptown near Soweto in which 3000 delegates adopted the Freedom Charter.

Mandela was restricted from attending meeting, but he drove down to Kliptown to be part of the Congress of the People; and by keeping to the shadows and the periphery of the crowd, Mandela watched as the Freedom Charter was adopted by all the groups involved. His increasing involvement in the anti-Apartheid struggle, however, caused problems for his marriage and in December that year Evelyn left him, citing irreconcilable differences.

In December 1956 the entire leadership of ANC was arrested including Mandela.They were charged with "high treason and a countrywide conspiracy to use violence to overthrow the present government and replace it with a communist state." The punishment for high treason was death. The Treason Trial dragged on, until Mandela and his 29 remaining co-accused were finally acquitted in March 1961. During the Treason Trial Nelson Mandela met and married his second wife, Nomzamo Winnie Madikizela.

The 1955 Congress of the People and its moderate stance against the policies of the Apartheid government eventually led to the younger, more radical members of the ANC to break away to form the Pan Africanist Congress,  in 1959 under the leadership of Robert Sobukwe. The ANC and PAC became instant rivals, especially in the townships. This rivalry came to a head when the PAC rushed ahead of ANC plans to hold mass protests against the pass laws. On 21 March 1960 at least  69 were killed when the South African police opened fire at Sharpeville.The Sharpeville Massacre, as the event has become known, signalled the start of armed resistance in South Africa, and prompted worldwide condemnation of South Africa's Apartheid policies.

Both the ANC and PAC responded in 1961 by setting up military wings. Nelson Mandela, in what was a radical departure from ANC policy, was instrumental in creating the ANC group: Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation, MK), and Mandela became the MK's first commander. Both the ANC and PAC were banned by the South African government under the Unlawful Organisations Act in 1961. The MK, and the PAC's Poqo, responded by commencing with campaigns of sabotage.

In 1962 Nelson Mandela was smuggled out of South Africa. He first attended and addressed the conference of African nationalist leaders, the Pan-African Freedom Movement, in Addis Ababa. From there he went to Algeria to undergo guerrilla training, and then flew to London to catch up with Oliver Tambo (and also to meet members of the British parliamentary opposition). On his return to South Africa, Mandela was arrested and sentenced to five years for "incitement and illegally leaving the country.

On 11 July 1963 a raid was undertaken on Lilieslief farm in Rivonia, near Johannesburg, which was being used by the MK as headquarters. The remaining leadership of the MK was arrested. Nelson Mandela was included at trial with those arrested at Lilieslief and charged with over 200 counts of "sabotage, preparing for guerrilla warfare in SA, and for preparing an armed invasion of SA". Mandela was  given life sentence and sent to Robben Island. 

The above quotation was from Mandela's speech in the court at the end of a 4 hour long statement.Here are few more excerpts from that statement given by Nelson Mandela in Pretoria Supreme Court on 20 April 1964.

.

"The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater.

Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout. 

The stay-at-home, in accordance with ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto.

We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the White man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it could not be denied that our policy to achieve a nonracial State by non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of terrorism.

It showed that a Government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything other than a loss of life and bitterness.

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful demands with force.

ANC was prepared to depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who undertook such activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC. 

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. 

This then was the plan. Umkhonto was to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in planning or carrying out operations. Attacks on the economic life lines of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and were fighting back against Government violence.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable o Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. African women want to be with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves. Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

In 1976 Nelson Mandela was approached with an offer by Jimmy Kruger, the Minister for Police serving under President BJ Vorster, to renounce the struggle and settle in the Transkei. Mandela refused.

In 1986 Nelson Mandela was taken to see the Minister of Justice, Kobie Coetzee, who requested once again that he 'renounce violence' in order to win his freedom.This was Mandela's response.

"What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offence? What freedom am I being offered to live my life as a family with my dear wife who remains in banishment in Brandfort? What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for permission to live in an urban area? What freedom am I being offered when I need a stamp in my pass to seek work? What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected?

Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts.

I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free.

Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return".

Due to huge International pressure by trade boycott and increasing domestic political unrest the White Government was forced to release Nelson Mandela on 11 February 1990.

When South Africa's first multi-racial elections were held in April 1994, the ANC won a 62% majority.

On 10 May 1994 Nelson Mandela made his inaugural presidential speech from the Union Building, Pretoria

"We dedicate this day to all the heroes and heroines in this country and the rest of the world who sacrificed in many ways and surrendered their lives so that we could be free.

Their dreams have become reality. Freedom is their reward.

We are both humbled and elevated by the honour and privilege that you, the people of South Africa, have bestowed on us, as the first President of a united, democratic, non-racial and non-sexist government.

We have at last, achieved our political emancipation. we pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender, and other discrimination. Never, never, and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another... Let freedom reign. God Bless Africa!"

Mandela retired from active political life in June 1999 after his first term of office as President 

Mandela has continued to play an active role in mediating conflicts around the world. He is also active in raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and in many other charity organisation.

Nelson Mandela never wavered in his devotion to democracy, equality and learning. Despite terrible provocation, he has never answered racism with racism. His life has been an inspiration, in South Africa and throughout the world, to all who are oppressed and deprived, to all who are opposed to oppression and deprivation.

Is more Government Control good or bad?

With demise of Soviet style Socialism in the 1980s most people believed that Government control of affairs of the society will become less and less and Laissez-faire Capitalism will rule the World.But it did not happen.Governments in most of the Western World is trying to control their economies more than before. Is more Government control good or bad?

Let me try to define Laissez-faire Capitalism.
Ayn Rand the Russian-American writer,a staunch supporter of Capitalism said

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


Actually no country followed Laissez-faire economic system. But most of the Western European countries and USA had a relatively free market economy though with varying degree of Government control.
But after the  economic crisis of 2008-09 the Governments are thinking about controlling their economies more and more.
 In USA, President Barack Obama's Democratic Party is trying to pass an economy regulation legislation which will increase the control of Government on the financial system.
In a speech today in New York Obama said:

I believe in the power of the free market. I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings. But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is a family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement.

I have also spoken before about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth in the 21st century. And, given the importance of the financial sector, Wall Street reform is an absolutely essential part of that foundation. Without it, our house will continue to sit on shifting sands, leaving our families, businesses and the global economy vulnerable to future crises. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to enact a set of updated, common-sense rules to ensure accountability on Wall Street and to protect consumers in our financial system.


It is widely agreed that the economic recession of 2008 could have been avoided if the Government had intervened to control unbridled sub prime lending and Mortgage frauds. It is also now clear that it was the bailout by Government using tax payers money that helped to prevent bankruptcy of many Companies.

Recent revelations that Goldman Sachs duped its own customers and made big profits raises the need for more Government regulation in Banking sector.
“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Let me quote Obama again:

"It is for this reason that we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and businesses. And from the start, I've insisted that the financial industry -- and not taxpayers -- shoulder the costs in the event that a large financial company should falter. The goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed "too big to fail.

"In the end, our system only works -- our markets are only free -- when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions -- that it works for all of us.

I agree with Obama here. More Government controls,safeguards and regulation will only help the economy.

As the Nobel Prize winning economist and a strong supporter of economic regulations by the State, Paul Krugman said:

For the fact is that much of the financial industry has become a racket — a game in which a handful of people are lavishly paid to mislead and exploit consumers and investors. And if we don’t lower the boom on these practices, the racket will just go on.

The sad story of Dr Siras.Time to end this moral policing

Dr Srinivas Ramachandra Siras,Chairman of the Department of Modern Indian Languages at Aligarh Muslim University was about to retire from his job in September this year after 22 years of distinguished service.. But on February 19, 2010 he was suspended from his job and was asked to leave the University campus vacating his quarters. His crime.....? Having consensual sex in the privacy of his quarters. All the hell broke loose because of a minor factor. His partner was a man.


The Vice Chancellor said he is being suspended for grave misconduct. The suspension was on the basis of a video recording filmed inside Dr Siras's quarters with out his consent.

Dr Siras approached the High Court. On April 1 a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court stayed the suspension and allowed Dr Siras to resume his work and to live in his quarters.

On April 4 Dr Siras approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking action against AMU officials and media persons for intruding his privacy, harassing and blackmailing him.

The life less body of 62-year-old Siras, was found on April 7 lying on the bed in his private apartment outside the University. It was believed that he died at least 2 days ago, may be on April 5, the day after he approached the Court against University authorities. Cause of death is still not known.

Was he killed? Or did he commit suicide? He was on the verge of a personal victory after the High Court order. He proved that he is a fighter by approaching the Court against University authorities. Will such a person take his own life at that particular juncture?

The family members and the Teachers Association have demanded high level probe into the matter.

Some people on the AMU faculty believe that the Vice Chancellor of the University was trying to divert attention from the negative publicity it had received with the recent inquiry ordered by the President of India, Pratibha Patil, after instances of financial bungling and mismanagement came to light. They believe that the video filming was arranged and paid for by top administrators of the University.

A first information report (FIR) was finally registered against four Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) officials and some journalists for breaching the privacy of Dr Siras, on April 9. The case was registered only because of the directions of the court.

The Integrated network of sexual minorities of India [INFOSEM] has started an online petition campaign in this issue. The network demands a judicial enquiry into the whole issue and the suspension of the Vice Chancellor; they want the AMU to respect the rights of its faculty and students, especially their privacy in matters of sex, sexuality and gender.

Aligarh Muslim University is supposed to be the bastion of minority religious rights. But when it comes to the rights of sexual minorities AMU was found inept in ensuring justice.

In view of the recent landmark Delhi High Court judgment legalising Gay sex, let us hope that at least in future, rights of sexual minorities will not be trampled upon by society.

Cervical Cancer Vaccine Project stopped in India

The Indian Central Government have announced  the suspension of the HPV vaccine project due to allegations of unethical pratices and deaths of 4 tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh.

Director-General of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) V.M. Katoch said that he had asked the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, the State governments and the people not to go ahead with the programme. “There can be no compromise, if ethical issues have been violated by any non-governmental organisation or pharmaceutical company. The government is all for the people, and genuine issues have to be addressed.”
The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, meant to prevent cervical cancer among women, has reportedly led to the death of four girls who were administered the dose in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh. Over 120 girls, who were given the shots, have reported adverse side-effects.

The trials are being described as a “demonstration project” by PATH-International, a U.S.-based non-governmental organisation, which is conducting the project for American pharmaceutical company Merck since July 2009.


The girls, aged between 10 and 14 and belonging to the most vulnerable sections of society, were enrolled in the study approved by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the respective State governments, and is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

At a press conference  conducted in New Delhi on April 7 by representatives of the All-India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA), Saheli, Sama, All-India People's Science Network, and the Jan Swasthya Abhiyan — Ms.Brinda Karat, the CPI [M] leader accused the pharmaceutical company of misleadingly promoting the vaccine as preventive for cervical cancer as it prevented the cancer of only two strains of hundreds that caused cervical cancer.

“The literature circulated in the project makes outright false statements about its safety, efficacy and duration of effectiveness. The girls and their parents have been told through the project documents that the vaccine will give life-long immunity, has no side-effects other than minor ones like fever and rash, and would not affect future fertility of the young girls,” the speakers said at the press conference.

After visiting some of the areas where the vaccine was administered, Ms. Karat had said the people were given to understand that it was an expensive vaccine and that they would not be able to afford it once the company's project was over, hence they should get their daughters vaccinated. Since the NRHM logo was on the card, the villagers went for the injection.


Close to 70 civil society groups, public health organisations, medical professionals, human rights organisations, women's groups and individuals have voiced their opposition to the nature of the HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccination ‘projects' carried out in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat by PATH International, in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the respective State governments.


They urged the Union government to come up with a national policy on this kind of medical “experimentation” and a pro-people vaccine policy based on public health needs.

In a memorandum submitted to Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, the groups pointed out that the efficacy of the vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, was highly suspect and a number of very serious side-effects, including deaths of vaccinated girls, were reported across the world.

As per extensive documentations made after fact-finding missions by local groups in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh (where 14,000 girls in the age group of 10-14 years have been vaccinated with three doses of the HPV vaccine), 120 reported adverse side-effects.

The groups also demanded that the government set up an inquiry into the death of four tribal girls and into the side-effects of the vaccine on affected girls so that responsibility could be fixed and action taken.

I had posted about HPV vaccine before in my other blog titled

Should I give the cervical cancer vaccine to my daughter?


My conclusion was like this.


I will not recommend HPV Vaccine with the present available scientific evidence due to the fact that the efficacy in preventing invasive cervical cancer is not much and there is a small but considerable risk of adverse events.


Even though India reports more than 70000 deaths yearly due to cervical cancer,this coslty vaccine [around 10000 Rs for 3 shots] is highly unlikely to make any change in incidence of Cervical cancer in India due to low efficacy and prohibitive cost.

Attempt by Pharma companies to make Indian Government buy such expensive and not so needed intervention through this sham of clinical trials conducted by [?pharma funded] 'NGO's has to be stopped at any cost.



Adapted from reports in The Hindu

From Dandi to Dantewada. A study in contrast

April 6. 1930

Millions of Indians led by Gandhiji made salt illegally defying the law as a non- violent form of protest against exploitation and injustice of the ruling British empire.

April 6, 2010.

 Maoists killed 72 jawans of the CRPF in an ambush in Dantiwada in a grossly violent form of 'protest' against alleged exploitation and injustice of the rulers.

 Methods of agitation cannot be as dissimilar as the above two. Ironically both happened on the same date 80 years apart.

Salt Sathygraha

Civil disobedience by symbolically breaking the Salt law was the strategy adopted my Gandhiji to create a political awakening in India and there by bring pressure on British to leave India.Salt he knew is essential for all communities, rich and poor alike. He announced his intention to the British through this letter.

                                  LETTER TO LORD IRWIN
                                                                 SATYAGRHA ASHRAM, SABARMATI,


                                                                                                           March 2, 1930
Dear Friend,
 
I cannot intentionally hurt anything that lives, much less fellow human beings, even though they may do the greatest wrong to me and mine. Whilst, therefore, I hold
the British rule to be a curse, I do not intend harm to a single Englishman or to any legitimate interest he may have in India.

And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?



It has impoverished the dumb millions by a system of progressive exploitation and by a ruinously expensive military and civil administration which the country can never afford.
It has reduced us politically to serfdom.

It is common cause that, however disorganized and, for the time being, insignificant it may be, the party of violence is gaining ground and making itself felt. Its end is the same as mine. But I am convinced that it cannot bring the desired relief to the dumb millions. And the conviction is growing deeper and deeper in me that nothing but unadulterated non-violence can check the organized violence of the British Government. Many think that non-violence is not an active force. My experience, limited though it undoubtedly is, shows that non-violence can be an intensely active force. It is my purpose to set
in motion that force as well against the organized violent force of the British rule as [against] the unorganized violent force of the growing party of violence. To sit still would be to give rein to both the forces above mentioned. Having an unquestioning and immovable faith in the efficacy of non-violence as I know it, it would be sinful on my
part to wait any longer.
But if you cannot see your way to deal with these evils and my letter makes no
appeal to your heart, on the 11th day of this month,1 I shall proceed with such co-workers of the Ashram as I can take, to disregard theprovisions of the salt laws. I regard this tax to be the most iniquitous of all from the poor man’s standpoint. As the independence movement is essentially for the poorest in the land the beginning will
be made with this evil. The wonder is that we have submitted to the cruel monopoly for so long. It is, I know, open to you to frustrate my design by arresting me. I hope that there will be tens of thousands ready, in a disciplined manner, to take up the work after me, and, in the act of disobeying the Salt Act to lay themselves open to the penalties of a law that should never have disfigured the Statute-book.
This letter is not in any way intended as a threat but is a simple and sacred duty peremptory on a civil resister. Therefore I am having it specially delivered by a young English friend who believes in the Indian cause and is a full believer in non-violence and whom Providence seems to have sent to me, as it were, for the very purpose.
I remain,
Your sincere friend,
M. K. GANDHI

Gandhiji started the march along with 78 satyagrahis, well trained in strict discipline and adherence to satyagraha and non violence on March 12. Walking around 15-20 kms a day through 4 districts covering scores of villages he reached Dandi and broke the Salt law on April 6, along with millions of Indians through out  the country.
Here is how United Press reporter Webb Miller described the Darsana Salt Work Satyagraha which was broke up by the British Police.

Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow. Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down


Maoist violence

Maoists believe Indian State should be overthrown by an armed revolution. They are of the opinion that the exploitation of poor of the Country can only end by a violent revolution. For them each and every person representing the State or the Capitalist class is a legitimate target to kill.Thats why they killed in cold blood 72 jawans of CRPF.

Study in contrast
Maoist believes the end justifies the means by which it is achieved. In contrast Gandhiji believed violence begets violence and an illegitimate way of achieving an end makes the end meaningless. Violence for a good cause makes the cause bad.Non-violence unites while violence divides people.


Is Gandhiji's strategy and beliefs outdated? I do not think so. All over the World it is getting more and more acceptance. You can see such strategies working in anti-war movements and in agitations of environmental groups.


Looking back at the history of the World I am sure that this mindless violence produced by Maoist fundamentalist ideology is bound to fail.


But how many more lives will it take before its inevitable failure?

Can the Maoists shun violence?

There are many who believe that Maoists are forced to resort to violence against the State.They feel it is a  response to the extreme repression of the Indian state.They say that since the Indian state is always ignoring or violently repressing various people’s movements, the people have no choice but to take to violence.


 

In a long article in The Outlook depicting her experience of living and traveling with the Maoists, Arundathi Roy shares similar view. She says

But what should I suggest they do? Go to court? Do a dharna at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi? A rally? A relay hunger strike? It sounds ridiculous. The promoters of the New Economic Policy—who find it so easy to say “There Is No Alternative”—should be asked to suggest an alternative Resistance Policy.

Is that true that Maoists are resorting to violence only because the State is extremely repressive and violent and they having no other alternative but to be violent?

The programme of the CPI[Maoist] says:

The immediate aim and programme of the Maoist party is to carry on and complete the already ongoing and advancing New Democratic Revolution in India as a part of the world proletarian revolution by overthrowing the semi-colonial, semi-feudal system under the neo-colonial form of indirect rule, exploitation and control. This revolution will remain directed against imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism. This revolution will be carried out and completed through armed agrarian revolutionary war, i.e. protracted people’s war with the armed seizure of power remaining as its central and principal task, encircling the cities from the countryside and thereby finally capturing them. Hence the countryside as well as the PPW (Protracted People’s War) will remain as the “center of gravity” of the party’s work, while urban work will be complimentary to it.

Here you can see that there is no talk of a non-violent alternative to fight against oppression.


The document states further that



Since armed struggle will remain as the highest and main form of struggle and the army as the main form of organization of this revolution, hence it will continue to play a decisive role, whereas the UF[United Front] will be built in the course of armed struggle and for the seizure of power through armed struggle. Mass organizations and mass struggles are necessary and indispensable but their purpose is to serve the war.


Maoists do not believe in the present Indian State and aims to overthrow it.The problems of the Adivasis are used by the Maoists to organise them against the State.Such people's movements are used by Maoists to serve their armed struggle against the State.

 This means Maoists can never shun violence.If they shun violence they cease to be Maoists.

 Can the Indian State defeat the Maoists?

 Yes,but not  by killing all the tribals in Maoist movement,but by genuinely addressing the problems of Adivasis.

What is the best option for Afghanistan?

What is the best option for Afghanistan?

a. More number of USA/NATO forces and a prolonged war to wipe out Taliban

b. Gradual withdrawal of USA/NATO forces and handing over of power to Karzai and 'good' Taliban

c.Immediate withdrawal of USA/NATO forces and leave Afghanistan for its own people

My feeling is the answer is c. Immediate withdrawal of Occupation forces and leaving Afghanistan to its people is the best and most democratic option.

Foreign troops do not grow democracy and peace especially in a complex geo-political situation like that in Afghanistan. If it could have succeeded it should have won the battle for peace and democracy within a short period of time.After 8 years of occupation by USA/NATO forces the chances of the Occupying Army 'teaching' the people democracy is very slim. On the other hand the Occupation and killing of hundreds of civilians is in turn fueling insurgency.

Let us hear what those fighting the war lords and fundamentalists have to say:

Malalai Joya

As a teacher in the secret schools that educated girls – strictly banned by the Taliban – she walked around western Afghanistan at the end of the 1990s with books hidden beneath the enveloping burqa.


Elected the youngest member of the Afghan parliament – and suspended for her outspoken criticism of the country's top officials – Malalai Joya has been labelled the bravest woman in Afghanistan.

Small, soft-spoken and now 31, she has survived at least four assassination attempts and is angry at the oppressive life she is forced to lead, dodging enemies she has denounced as bloody-handed warlords and drug kingpins. She sleeps in safe houses, with a rotating squad of bodyguards securing the doors. She goes out only in a billowing burqa. Even her wedding was held in secret.

Malalai Joya says;
"Liberation was just a big lie.The United States/NATO should go. As long as foreign troops are in the country we will be fighting two enemies instead of one."

Yes, she says, there is a risk of civil war, as happened when the Soviet Union gave up the fight against U.S.-backed Afghan Islamists 20 years ago. But it would still be better than "night raids, torture and aerial bombardment" that killed hundreds of Afghan civilians while the Taliban made steady gains.

Joya believes Afghans are now better prepared to battle the Taliban alone – if the warlords are disarmed, and the international community helps build a society that can push back against extremism.

It is a tall order, she admits. But "resistance has increased, and people are becoming more aware of democracy and human rights. They need humanitarian and educational support."

But not, she adds, at the point of a gun.

The Afghan public, she adds, are on her side, pointing to a recent opinion poll showing 60 per cent of Afghans want an immediate NATO withdrawal. Many people in Afghanistan were hopeful, she says, about Barack Obama – "but he is actually intensifying the policy of George Bush... I know his election has great symbolic value in terms of the struggle of African-Americans for equal rights, and this struggle is one I admire and respect. But what is important for the world is not whether the President is black or white, but his actions. You can't eat symbolism."

US policy is driven by geopolitics, she says, not personalities. "Afghanistan is in the heart of Asia, so it's a very important place to have military bases – so they can control trade very easily with other Asian powers such as China, Russia, Iran and so on.

"But it can be changed by Americans," she adds. She is passionate now, her voice rising. "I say to Obama – in my area, 150 people were blown up by US troops in one incident this year. If your family had been there, would you send even more troops and even more bombs? Your government is spending $18m (£11m) to make another Guantanamo jail in Bagram. If your daughter might be detained there, would you be building it? I say to Obama – change course, or otherwise tomorrow people will call you another Bush."

RAWA

Founded in 1977,Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan [RAWA] is the oldest political and social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy, and women’s rights in an Afghanistan blighted by fundamentalism. Their members risk personal safety and dedicate their lives to improving conditions for all Afghan women; many have been assassinated, included RAWA’s founder, Meena.
The organization calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops.
During October 2009, RAWA sponsored a speaking tour of the U.S. Representing RAWA’s Foreign Committee, Zoya spoke in a meeting in a University in Iowa,USA:

“I want to focus on the eight years of occupation by the United States and NATO countries, “Unfortunately, the West’s impression that Afghanistan has been liberated by the United States, that Afghanistan is a free country, that we are enjoying freedom and democracy to our country is untrue,” said Zoya.

“Yes, Afghanistan is free for the warlords. Afghanistan is free for drug lords. Afghanistan is free for rapists to rape children and women. Afghanistan is free for United States troops to kill our civilians, our children, our women, day by day in so-called mistakes,” said Zoya.
Zoya is a RAWA member whose parents were killed by extremists in Afghanistan when she was in her teens. She honors her mother’s work for women’s rights by continuing in her footsteps. Education of women, often in refugee camps and orphanages, has produced a generation of women like Zoya who are able in turn to educate us about conditions in their country.A refugee currently living in Pakistan, Zoya uses a pseudonym when traveling and speaking because her life has been threatened by fundamentalists. She also asked photographers not to photograph her face.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of its geo-political, economic, and regional strategic goals and to build military bases there, said Zoya, “not to liberate women.”

Freedom, democracy, and justice cannot be exported and forced on other countries at gunpoint, but instead are achieved over time through a long and arduous process, said Zoya.

“Those who claim to donate these values to the Afghan people through force will only push our country into slavery. It is our responsibility to stand up to fundamentalists and occupations,” said Zoya.


The women of Afghanistan, after eight years of occupation, offer conflicting advice, depending on their position in society. If the women are in Kabul, are educated and affluent, and have family members in office or are part of the government, they sometimes say, “our safety is in danger if U.S. troops leave." If the women are in the countryside (and 90% are) they say, “get the troops out now. Our rights, our freedoms, our safety have not improved in eight years of occupation — and the occupation fuels the insurgency.” In this complex war-torn nation, both opinions are valid.



Both Zoya and Malalai must live in safe houses and move frequently, as their truth-telling has resulted in death threats against them. Yet asked what she fears, Malalai said: “I don’t fear death. I fear political silence against injustice.” And from her website Malaijoya.com this statement, echoes fears raised during the rise of fascism in 20th century Europe: “The silence of good people is worse than the actions of bad people.”
Although the  robotic killer drones strike wedding parties and funerals, crossing into Pakistan freely, the insurgency grows. Terrorists are created faster than they are being killed. But maybe that’s the real goal?

Speak up and expose the so-called war on terror for what it really is: a marketing strategy for corporate profits, Zoya adds..



Although the group initially welcomed the U.S. presence, RAWA changed its stance after learning that the United States is  helping fundamentalist groups.

“I think it’s the Afghan people’s responsibility to fight [against fundamentalist groups],” she said.



Yes Afghanistan should fight its own battle against fundamentalism.The rest of the World should  support the democratic forces from outside..

Let me end this post with a quote of Malalai Joya.

"They will kill me but they will not kill my voice, because it will be the voice of all Afghan women. You can cut the flower, but you cannot stop the coming of spring".



links and acknowledgments
RAWA, 
the star
the independent  malalaijoya.com