[Highly relevant in this context is Prof. Badri Raina's comment, posted yesterday: "those who are more familiar with the structures of Left politics than most, sense some sort of a paradigm shift in the offing with regard to both the substance and the style of the Party's operations and intervention in the coming years. To the best of my acquaintance and education, such a climate of anticipation might flatter and forewarn, if not scare, the new General Secretary in equal measure. Communist Parties, after all, subordinate individuals to collective decisions (remember Jyoti Basu?) and any change of leadership there does not carry the same probabilities as it may and usually does in what are called bourgeois formations." (May also look up: <http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5667.html>. The write-up is even otherwise noteworthy, as is Srinivasan Ramani's 'An elevation to lift the Left? at <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/an-elevation-to-lift-the-left/article7126843.ece?ref=sliderNews>.') Even then the change of guard open up the possibility of at least some subtle shift in direction. Of course gone are the days of P C Joshi - B T Randive - Ajoy Ghosh, when radical shifts were effected (virtually) overnight based on diktats from the "headquarter of world revolution".]
I/III. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-withdrawing-support-to-upa-on-indo-us-nuclear-deal-was-a-mistake-sitaram-yechury-2084674 Withdrawing support to UPA on Indo-US nuclear deal was a mistake: Sitaram Yechury Sunday, 10 May 2015 - 5:25pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI Seven years after the Left parties withdrew support to the Manmohan Singh government on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the CPI(M) on Sunday acknowledged the bad timing of the step and its failure to make the deal an election issue. Seven years after the Left parties withdrew support to the Manmohan Singh government on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the CPI(M) on Sunday acknowledged the bad timing of the step and its failure to make the deal an election issue. The party's new General Secretary Sitaram Yechury said that in retrospect, the Left parties should have linked the withdrawal of support to the government with people's issues such as price rise. Yechury had told PTI in a recent interview that the Left should not have withdrawn support to the government on the issue of nuclear deal but clarified today that there was no option but to withdraw support on the issue. However, he acknowledged that the Left parties could not make it an election issue. Yechury maintained during the interview that the party's decision to oppose the nuclear deal was correct. "We said that this was not the issue (to withdraw support). We reviewed it later. In hindsight, we have said we could not make it a people's issue (in the elections). It should have been a people's issue like price rise and the UPA abandoning the 'aam aadmi' perspective," Yechury said. "And it was also the timing (of withdrawal) for which we also self-criticised. But the issue of (opposing) the nuclear deal, we have no regrets and we think is correct." By going ahead with the nuclear deal, it was a signal that the UPA wanted to jettison the Left, he said. The nuclear deal was not part of the UPA's Common Minimum Programme, he says but there was "tremendous pressure on India to be a subordinate ally of the US strategic interests in the world. We have been vindicated on this". Yechury was replying to a question on the decline of the Left forces including CPI(M) after the 2009 elections and whether snapping ties with UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal was a mistake. While the Left got 64 seats in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, its numbers fell to 24 in 2009 and 10 in the 2014 polls. In 2009, the CPI(M) Central Committee had said in its poll review: "The decision to withdraw support to the (UPA-I) government when it decided to go ahead to operationalise the nuclear deal was correct. "It was based on our understanding that the Party cannot support a government which is entering into a comprehensive strategic tie-up with US imperialism in which the nuclear deal was ... 'the cementing factor'. However, we could not mobilise people on the nuclear issue and rally them during the election." II/III. http://www.asianage.com/india/snapping-ties-upa-error-sitaram-yechury-136 Snapping ties with UPA error: Sitaram Yechury May 11, 2015 | Age Correspondent | New Delhi Snapping ties with UPA error: Sitaram Yechury (Photo: PTI) Seven years after the Left parties withdrew support to the UPA-1 government on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal, CPI(M) boss Sitaram Yechury acknowledged that the timing of the step was wrong and that the Left parties failed to make it a people's issue during the polls, which saw the Left parties plunging into a crisis after their worst electoral performance in the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. Mr Yechury was replying to a question on the decline of the Left forces, including the CPI(M), after the 2009 general election, and whether snapping ties with the UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal was a mistake. In an interview to a news agency, the party's new general secretary said that in retrospect the Left parties should have linked the withdrawal of support to the government to people's issues like price-rise. "We said that this was not the issue (to withdraw support). We reviewed it later. In hindsight we have said we could not make it a people's issue (in the elections). It should have been a people's issue, like price-rise, and (from) the UPA-abandoning-the-aam-aadmi perspective," he said. While Mr Yechury said the Left should not have withdrawn support to the government on the issue, at the time the party withdrew its support "'there was no option but to withdraw support on the issue". Going ahead with the deal was a signal that the UPA wanted to jettison the Left, he said. III. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/shouldnt-have-snapped-ties-with-upa-over-nuclear-deal-sitaram-yechury-761909 Shouldn't Have Snapped Ties with UPA over Nuclear Deal: Sitaram Yechury All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: May 10, 2015 13:24 IST NEW DELHI: The Left parties should not have withdrawn support to UPA-I government on the issue of Indo-US nuclear deal, says CPI-M General Secretary Sitaram Yechury on the steep decline of the communists eversince. Instead, they should have withdrawn support on issues like price rise as the people could not be mobilised on the nuclear deal issue in the 2009 general elections. However, Mr Yechury asserts that the party's decision to oppose the nuclear deal was correct. "We said that this was not the issue (to withdraw support). We reviewed it later. In hindsight, we have said we could not make it a people's issue (in the elections). It should have been a people's issue like price rise and the UPA abandoning the 'aam aadmi' perspective," Mr Yechury told PTI in an interview. "And it was also the timing (of withdrawal) for which we also self-criticised. But the issue of (opposing) the nuclear deal, we have no regrets and we think is correct." He says by going ahead with the nuclear deal, it was a signal that the UPA wanted to jettison the Left. The Indo-US nuclear deal was not part of the UPA's Common Minimum Programme, he says but there was "tremendous pressure on India to be a subordinate ally of the US strategic interests in the world. We have been vindicated on this". Mr Yechury was replying to a question on the decline of the Left forces including CPI(M) after the 2009 elections and whether snapping ties with UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal was a mistake. In 2009, the CPI(M) Central Committee had said in its poll review: "The decision to withdraw support to the (UPA-I) government when it decided to go ahead to operationalise the nuclear deal was correct. "It was based on our understanding that the Party cannot support a government which is entering into a comprehensive strategic tie-up with US imperialism in which the nuclear deal was ... 'the cementing factor'. However, we could not mobilise people on the nuclear issue and rally them during the election." To questions regarding the direction given by the CPI(M) Congress recently in Vishakhapatnam where he was elected the General Secretary, Mr Yechury says, "CPI(M) is the party of the future and we have to emerge that way." According to him, for the next three years, the party's primacy would be to first arrest the decline, then regain and then restore people's confidence in it. The party has decided to do organisational revamping and intends to substantially improve its independent strength and do political intervention on policy matters. It has decided to hold a special Plenum later this year to specifically discuss ways to beef up its organisational strength. The next task, Mr Yechury says, was to unite the Left which is dispersed among various parties, many of whom operate at the state levels. "We have to unite these Left parties and a large section of non-party sympathisers and intellectuals to a common agenda. Through this, we will seek the unity of Left and democratic forces to present a policy alternative to counter the ruling classes." The 63-year-old parliamentary party leader, who has a reputation of practising pragmatic politics, says the party was also ready to forge a front with Congress in Parliament on issues like land bill and secularism but ruled out being part of a national front or alliances outside because "they are not credible". Acknowledging that the coming assembly elections in Bihar would be a litmus test for anti-BJP forces, he however says his party would wait and watch how the merger of Janata Parivar evolves in deciding their strategy. "Inside Parliament, we have said we will unite on all these issues (like land bill), issue to issue which we think are not in the interests of the country and the people. "Outside Parliament, our party has said that the projection of a front at the national level, with many of these regional parties, is not tenable at the moment because such a front has to have a policy alternative, which as a whole, we think, in the present situation cannot emerge," he says. The CPI(M) leader was replying to a question as to what will be the party's stand on tying up with Congress and other parties to take on BJP. Asked about working with Congress, he says that was ruled out because of the economic policies followed by the party which gave rise to discontent on which BJP rode to power. "So, that sort of a policy framework of going with the Congress is ruled out. Yes, there are threats to the secular democratic foundations of our country and very grave threats are now coming. "On those issues of maintaining our country's social harmony and strengthening secular democratic foundations of the Indian republic which are under attack from RSS-BJP, on issue-to issue, we will join all secular forces in Parliament mainly. Outside, our energies will be more directed to strengthening ourselves," the top CPI(M) leader says. On Rahul Gandhi's recent campaign on issues like land bill, he says it was good "but right now there is no coherent alternative the Congress is offering. Now we will have to wait and see the next important thing that will come." Mr Yechury says the GST Bill and the labour law reforms the government is trying to push can be a new area of opportunity for joint action.Story First Published: May 10, 2015 13:24 IST -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
