1. Secondly, Mao attacked the theory of Genius expounded by Lin Biao. This was left only in form; this was also supporting the elitist domination of the ordinary people. Hence, the great proletarian philosopher Mao unconditionally rejected this elitist theory in both of its forms.

2. Let us have an idea of the contribution of this great revolutionary of the proletariat, for the cause of socialism, which indeed is also the cause of mankind. I believe that all his great contributions are summed up in his theory of ‘people’s war’. This involves material production, conducting a real war with weapons, and finally improving the human quality and creating in that process the new revolutionary egalitarian organisation and all the supporting structures of a new kind.

3. All this was achieved with the most willing and active cooperation and participation of the ordinary and in most cases the illiterate men and women with tremendous elation. It is only in such a kind of activity that people realise the aim, direction and the necessary confidence. All this was experimented in the real battlefield and Mao was the chief architect. He was the path-breaker indeed.

Peoples” war at various levels

4. At the level of language, this theory results in the remarkable proletarian revolutionary criticism, which bears the name’ ‘Eight-legged essay’ in which he criticises the style of writing and shows the proletarian style of writing. It is only with such a language the proletariat can use language as a fighting weapon.

5. At the level of art and literature his speech at Yenan Forum on art and literature expounds the correct direction and orientation for the proletarian art and literature.

6. At the economic front he clearly and categorically rejects the elitist, ultra scientific method of using all kinds of an un-understandable mathematics, which can easily dupe the masses or finally develop a blind trust on the elite. On the contrary he emphasises on the production relationship, which can be easily verified by every ordinary worker and peasant. This method finally results in the documents of proletarian methodology. The ‘ten great relationship’. It is the proletarian strategy for the overall planning at all levels. In all this Mao shows the path of freedom i.e., Free from the clutches of the elite.

7. At the level of industrialisation he hailed the ordinary peoples effort of erecting the backyard furnaces, which the revisionist of every kind goes on condemning to this day. Mao wanted to support the people’s way of doing things and not the other way where people stand with folded hands before the ‘all-knowing’ elite. He never wanted the working people to become beggars before this elite. This also is the true way of self-reliance.

8. At the educational front Mao saw that the older method of education only can produce a class divided society and so he called for a closure of the Academic Centres. This was most hated by the revisionists and the elite. He demanded the academic people to go to the villages work with the peasants and workers and thereby change themselves to a proletarian way. All this is now totally scrapped and with vengeance the class producing elitist educational system is reinstated by Deng & Co.

9. At the level of medical profession he emphasised the highly empirical easily observable, highly practical, indigenous methods including acupuncture and also the production of the less specialised but more humane, Red bare-foot doctors who in essence are the people’s doctors.

10. At the level of work Mao emphasised manual work and demanded the elite to work in the fields and factories shoulder to shoulder with the peasants and workers and learn from them.

11. At the level of politics he repeatedly emphasised not to forget class struggle and in war he emphasised that it was the conscious human that was the determining aspect in a proletarian war and never weapons, however powerful the weapons may be. This is the greatest revolutionary message in the art of war, which is totally unknown to any of the western experts who are all worshippers of machines and weapons. The way in which the war is conducted will finally determine whether power will be with the people or with the elite. So there are not only two kinds of war like just and unjust but also two methods of war. Even if the war is a just war if it is not conducted in the proper way the result will be the very opposite of the aim. This is applicable to production method also.

12. At the level of organisation Mao rejected the notion of the organisational principle that the minority should submit unconditionally to the majority, a line advocated by Lui Shaochi as well as Deng which is also the Leninist one. He clearly showed as to why and how to rebel against the majority and even against the communist party if need be. It is something unknown in any of the communist parties. Even those communist parties that have formally accepted this revolutionary principle, which alone expresses the principle of revolutionary kind of voluntary discipline or disciplined freedom, have not fully realised the meaning of this nor have they been able to use it.

13. At the level of production he showed the way to reject the bureaucratic method (Taylorism imported from US, by Lenin and grafted on Soviet organisation was also responsible for the fast evolution of the bureaucratic apparatus in the Soviet Society) and introduced the three-in-one combination, which was dissolved the moment revisionists, took over power.

14. Finally he shared the way to indigenise knowledge as well as technology, which was, called walking-on-two-legs but this can never succeed unless there is an all-round dictatorship of the proletariat and a thorough implementation of the proletarian line in all fields.

15. Where did he stop? This is also very important for us to realise. He did not, perhaps could not do a thorough criticism of the bourgeois class science and its technology. At any rate he was at the threshold of doing it when he left the scene. This is the most important unfinished work.

NEO COLONIALISM – A TEST CASE (AGRICULTURE)

PEST PROBLEM

16. In older times for all practical purposes the peasantry had no notion at all of pests because the damage from insects, fungi or bacteria or virus never really ruined the crops. Even rats were not treated as serious pests. The main reasons were due to the pattern of cultivation. While snakes, mongoose, owls and such predators consumed part of the rodent population, the village boys themselves ate a sizable population with great relish. Field rats are very tasty.

17. However the pest problem is real to day. It has become so only after the introduction of the hybrid seeds, and very much after the hybrid cotton entry. In non-cotton area the introduction of ‘High Yielding Varieties’ (H.Y.V) in paddy and other grains has produced this problem. The pests were originally seen in the H.Y.Vs. Now they are attacking all the crops and plants. Hence we are calling the so-called H.Y.Vs, Pest Producing Varieties (P.P.Vs.), which should be their proper name.

Manuring

18. Organic manuring was the only kind known earlier. Of course they knew the way to neutralise the soil when they found it either more acidic or alkaline. Such a kind of knowledge was also traditional. However when we properly examine, organic manuring is not just manuring. It is indeed a very important aspect of soil development. It increases the soil health. That is never the case with synthetic fertilisers. The fertilisers reduce very soon or very fast the health of the soil. Hence they are not at all same or equal. In a way they are opposites.

19. To have the necessary quantity of organic manure the peasants should have sufficient cattle-heads. It is calculated that three large animals are needed per acre. If the peasant has less of the larger animals he should have goats and rams. To maintain them the farmer should have sufficient fodder or graining lands. Almost all the fodder crops are at the same time grain crops. However in the lost one to one and half decades the grain production has become very much un-economical due to the introduction of the so-called hybrid varieties, which demands very high input. Secondly because of the use of a lot of systemic pesticides and fungicides the fodder too is poisoned. This has resulted in a number of diseases amidst the cattle once again adding to the increase of financial burden on the shoulders of the peasant community. Hence in most of the garden lands where water is lifted by electric pump-sets fodder production is almost vanishing. It is also the case with the courser grains like Jawer, Bajra; Ragi etc. through they are highly nutritious. Fodder is grown now mainly on the rain fed dry land. There too the quantum has become less because of the lack of organic manure. This situation has also affected the production of the pulses, which were grown on this rain fed dry lands as inter-crops. No wonder this has the most adverse effects on the health of the peasants as well as the cattle too.

Food Production

20. Barring the paddy belt fed by the channels directly from the river the garden lands do not any more grow much grain. In former periods every gardener had grain for the farm hands as well as for his family. He only purchased rice occasionally. Now the situation is that most of them do not grow any grain even for their own domestic purposes. They purchase the useless rice. In these garden lands more and more crops are grown for commercial and industrial purposes. The same thing can also be said of the pulses. Lack of organic manure has its telling effect on the productivity of the soil as well as the health of the plants that are grown. The pests very easily attack the crops. They have no ability to stand the attack. They are weak from the start.

21. Because agriculture is becoming an un-economic proposition particularly for the poorer sections of the peasantry considerable land is sold away for non-agricultural purposes as for house sites and the topsoil for brick making. This is the fast developing situation ever around medium as well as small towns. Agriculture is almost becoming an impossibility, around big towns like Coimbatore, Tiruppur and Erode for a radius of even twenty to thirty kilometer, because the working force of the villages is daily drawn to the urban centres at a fairly higher wage because of black money and as such as even the middle peasant cannot afford to pay that amount of wages that too when food grains are becoming uneconomical. The peasant is compelled to grow mainly commercial crops or resort to the production of eggs and broiler once again an urban supplier. The wastes of the urban centres, which can be very good manure is now uncared for. In former times sub-urban peasants used to purchase them when auctioned. To day there is none to bid. Even if it is given freely the peasants will not lift it, simply because agriculture itself is non-remunerative. How can he become really self reliant in food production? All such talk is really nonsense.

The earlier method & Modern method of agricultural practice

22. In the earlier method the maximum advantage of nature’s gift was taken. The modern or the so-called Scientific Agricultural method simply has made the peasants totally ignore this side. This has only added to their expenditure, increased his troubles and made him more and more despondent. The return is not at all definite. Cultivation has become a highly risky proposition.

23. Obviously the very idea of season or season–bound way of crop rising is hated with contempt by these ‘Scientific’ experts. These ‘scientific experts’ simply do not know ABC of Tropical agriculture. All seasons are treated same. The peasant is made to believe that by artificial means all the problems can be solved. However the result has been just the opposite. It can be put that in the earlier method the peasant’s contribution can be said to be a small part while nature’s contribution was great. However in today’s method nature does not contribute. In fact it works against the peasant because the method is anti-ecological and hence self-defeating. However it is eminently profitable to imperialism and its agents, which is the elite of this land. In former period the peasants’ problems were due to the exploitative social system. But to day it is not simply that.

24. Advocates of the so called Scientific Agriculture (in reality irrational one) consider and hence ask the peasants to consider their accumulated knowledge as out-dated and incapable of higher production and only the new one as the most productive one. Experience proves the opposite is the truth. The drive towards the chemical fertilisers had one drastic effect. The peasants became almost negligent towards the cattle wealth. He was made to believe that the chemical fertilisers were the real substitute to organic manure, which it is certainly not. Today many of these farmers do not have even a pair of bullocks. They only have at best only a couple of buffaloes for selling milk that too for the urban centres.

25. Most of the garden lands use invariably well water which has a certain amount of salinity which the peasants consider as really good for such crops like tobacco, cotton, sugarcane etc., However the soil has to be periodically neutralised. Otherwise the Ph. value would increase. Organic manuring is the best way to achieve this. To day this also has become a serious issue. The salinity is increasing which is telling upon the productivity of the soil.

Seeds

26. When these new seeds (High Yielding Varieties) were introduced a systematic drive was launched to see that the indigenous seeds were driven out of existence. The peasants were not even given an option. The heavy propaganda was done to discredit the most remarkable seeds over which the peasant had control. It was the real basis of his self-reliance. It was the target of attack by the most vicious and sinister Imperialism. All the rascals here were mobilised to destroy the strength of the peasantry, which was the most independent section of this land all in the name of self-reliance. It is not an accident that imperialism got the Nobel Prize to that man who helped to destroy the real strength of the peasant of the third world. Now we can understand who the real enemy of this peasant was. Hence I told in a conference in India that if research funds for agriculture are simply cut agriculture will ‘flourish’. Of course Dr. Varadarajan (Director General of C.S.I.R) who was on the chair was not able to immediately appreciate it. After all he was a Brahmin whose family would have deserted the village several generations back and there is hence no reasons for him to understand the philosophy of tropical agriculture. So we can excuse him but can we excuse Mr. C.Subramaniam the Vellala who was really instrumental in destroying the strength the Vellalas of our land?

Loans for Deep Wells and Pump sets

27. Crop loans were given partly in cash but mainly on the production of cash receipts indicating the purchase of insecticides and fertilisers. In the same way credit was given for deep wells or bore wells, which no doubt helped big companies. Water conversion was deliberately neglected. Electric energy is now supplied freely for those who have installed pump sets, with deep bore to the level of even 300 feet to 400 feet. Costing no doubt 35 to 40 thousand rupees. If tariff had been fixed no peasant would have gone for these deep-bore methods. Of course big companies would not have got huge profits. The peasants would have started their struggle for small irrigation projects including check-walls in the rivulets and streams. They would have demanded the renovation of the lakes, tanks etc., which are now a day allowed to go dry and are used for the so-called Social forests. While real forests are regularly destroyed with impurity these small tanks are said to become forests! Is it nor ironical! People do not laugh by their mouth!

28. Every policy is to suit the benefit of imperialism and no doubt it’s agents leading to the strangulation of the people. The main aim is to make the people incapable of revolting against the monster. Such is the aim of the neo-Imperialism. The rulers here faithfully carry out the dictate of their masters.

Theoretical basis

29. The almost total neglect of the possible development of resistance by the insect, Bacteria and fungus to the chemical poisons was essentially due to the bias in favour of the mutation and selection theory, the so called Mendalian theory of inheritance. The idea of direct adaptation is almost accepted as a disproved notion. It was more a disapproved one. This, the so-called Lamarkian mode of inheritance, had been clearly indicated as the mode of inheritance of insects, which are pests. A field study can amply confirm this many of the insects that were killed by a very small amount of insecticides some 10 years back have become highly resistant even to larger dosages. Prof. Henshilwood by his studies on bacterial transformation had pointed out this phenomenon.

30. However the only conclusion that any honest person can draw from the field study should be that insects and bacteria appear to be more Lamarkian than Mendalian in their mode of transformation. If only we had accepted such a possibility of direct adaptation we would have definitely avoided the chemical poison as the dependable measure against these insect pests. We would have explored other possibilities including such a way, which would not have created in the first instance such a problem at all. Pest phenomenon is not normally a natural one. It is the creation of man’s activities.

31. Secondly we would not have opted to the so-called high yielding varieties, which have created this pest problem. We have never cared to examine how our ancients had developed so many verities in plants without deliberately using the sexual methods.

32. In the rooting plants sexual method of reproduction is never a must. Non-sexual ways are quite common. The significance of their shift is not at all properly evaluated. The neglect of it is not also accidental. It has political reasons. Further the seeds used by our peasants were continuously selected. Such a selection was based on the age of the parent plant as well as the position of the seed in the head in the seasonal crops. Hence the notion of traditional seed is absurd. They are not the seeds that were used to hundreds of years back. Every village woman knew the art of Seed Selection. In short the genetic system or reproductive pattern of the rooting plant is very much different from that of the majority of animal organism. In the latter sexual reproduction has become the norm. Once the full significance of this phenomenon is realised we will know how the tribals of Chatisghar area developed the thousands of varieties of paddy as well as how our illiterate farmer of earlier periods developed the hundreds of varieties of banana. However modern Imperialism cannot gain anything from such knowledge, but only will stand to lose. Hence, this has become almost a forbidden area of investigation and our people’s knowledge is condemned as totally out-dated and unproductive.

33. Finally it is also based upon the dominant notion that life and evolution are the outcome of incessant struggle in which the stronger invariably wins and the week deserves to perish. So killing or exterminating the week is quite justified. This also suits the policy of Imperialism. Not merely peoples but also technologies can be wiped out and justified. All the variations or modifications suggested time and again do not alter this basic notion of Darwinism. The role of mutual co-operation in life and evolution is still very much a closed book in biology.

34. The whole area of Agro-technology as well as Biotechnology and integrated-pest control etc., is based upon this erroneous theories of organic evolution. However these theories serve admirably the minority, which is the worst kind of parasite on the majority. This is the only reason why such theories are taught as sacred and inviolable truth in our academics.

Politics behind this kind of ‘Developmental’ Paradigm

35. The pre-green revolution period (up to 1962) really was the best phase so far as the agricultural front was concerned in the post independent period. The Government’s effort in the area of water conservation cannot be praised. The main work at least in Tamil Nadu was concerned with energy supply. At the early phase (Up to 57-58) soil conservation was given considerable importance. Biological control of pests was taken up. Chemical control was no doubt ushered. Some new hybrids were developed. But the native seeds were not hounded out in any systematic way. The pattern of cultivation was not radically changed. The art of cultivation was well understood by the peasants. He was a confident being.

36. However an artificial scarcity was created and there was also a un-intensive propaganda made in favour of the so called green–revolution. The main aim or even the only aim was to bring the entire agriculture of this land (as well as the entire third world no doubt) under the direct control of Imperialism. (U.S. no doubt). The chemical industries of U.S. were behind this most vicious attack on the peoples of the third world, mainly poor peasants. Mr. Borlog’s Nobel Prize was not at all an epoch making scientific work. It was not in any sense a break–through in the food–front. It was not at all designed to supply ample food to the starving impoverished sections of mankind. Can it be the aim of the Imperialists? Only a fool or those with jaundiced eyes can imagine so. Will the wolf be interested in the welfare of the sheep? However the leaders of this land went on propagating that U.S. Imperialism was really interested in helping our people. This is the content of the official propaganda even today. The tragedy is that even a big chunk of communists also give credence to this nonsense all in the name of co-existence and economic assistance. Can they be communists? Are they really the friends of the poor peasants? Coming back to the scientific side. I didn’t think that Borlogue had any glimpse of a notion of the history of Rice or Banana. Our people did not produce the hundreds of varieties by using the method of crossing. However their method did not produce quick results, but they selected the seeds in a way as to have good qualities which at the same time did not create the pest problem. But Mr. Borlogue deliberately created this pest problem. That was his very purpose. It was just for that he is praised by the ruling sections of the third world. Those who opposed were removed from the decision-making positions. Poor Dr. Ricchania a genuine nationalist and a Gandhian, was removed. Gandhi would have all praise for Dr. Ricchania. Of course we cannot expect such an understanding from the arrogant Nehru who loved sycophantism and who was also an abject slave of the West.

37. The neo-imperialist onslaught on India was after the dismal defeat of India in the ‘India’s China war’. It was most humiliating personally to Nehru and his paralysis was also not surprising. Sino–Indian border war was designed to bring Indian Economy and no doubt politics under the strangle hold of U.S. Imperialism. In this most sinister political game Soviet Union gladly and actively assisted the U.S. Not surprisingly Communist Party China (C.P.C) accused Communist Party of Soviet Union as apologists of Neo-colonialism (1963) and collaborators of U.S. Imperialism. However the strategy of Neo-colonialism was not clearly brought out at that stage even by C.P.C and that was one of the main reasons why revisionism was not defeated and on a later date C.P.C. leadership itself abandoned the revolutionary anti-imperialist path. However the anti-China posture tightened the Imperialist noose around the Economy of India from which it has not been able to extricate itself to this date.

38. However our purpose here is to examine how modern Imperialism was actually aided to enter into the area of agriculture to the greatest detriment of the peasantry in general and the poorer sections in particular. Further we should also know how to retrieve the situation. To fight for organic farming is in a way the direct fight against modern Imperialism, it is also a struggle for real democracy and the rule of the people. It is the way to mobilise the largest forces of this land against modern Imperialism as well as against its local stooges.

39. It is in this context that we should examine the rural program of the so-called ‘Twenty Point Programme’, which was claimed to save the peasantry from the private money lending Shylocks. Actually during this period majority of the peasants used to get loans from the moneyed section in the rural areas, which mainly consisted of the non-agricultural sections at a rate of 12 to 15%. The moneylender was mainly from the Banias and Brahmins. Instead of getting 6% from depositing in the nationalised banks they were lending the amount to the peasantry. They were not demanding very high rate of interest also. They were no more interested in getting the lands of the peasants because they knew that the happy days of absentee Land-Lordism were over. They give such loans only because they were certain that they could recover the amount with interest by going to the Court. So they did not bother about the trustworthiness or honesty of the borrower also. All they needed was the landed security for the loan.

40. When the Twenty Point Programme was announced it was said that the, peasant, need not return the loans got from the moneylenders. Was it to help the poor peasants that it was declared so? Never. However such was the propaganda. Only when we analyse such programs from the point of class-interest or class–aim can we clearly see the sinister motive behind this move. The local moneylender stopped giving loans to the poor peasants even on mortgage. They never bothered to distinguish between an honest person and one of doubtful nature! The moneyed people began to deposit their money in the rural nationalised banks. It was that, the urban industrialists and commercial houses needed that. The so-called surplus rural money was brought to the urban areas by a simple threat.

41. Now the peasants had to borrow only from the banks. New conditions were clearly laid, which clearly assisted the chemical companies. Not only was it enough. It was realised by the Imperialist that until the peasants had with them their own seeds, in short the peasants had real control over the seeds, which did not require pesticides, insecticides or the abundance of water, and synthetic fertiliser they could not be brought under their total control. That means they should be coerced to change their pattern of production. It was clear that they were till then able to produce their grain most economically basing the method of the season–bound system wherein the contribution of nature was very high. Only when this was reduced to minimum the peasants had to abandon the production of food crops and had to shift to other commercial crops, which satisfied the chemical industries admirably. This satisfied their local agents too, which included the departmental people and the bank staff as well as the so-called elite, the agents of imperialism.

42. The main attack hence by modern Imperialism was on the remarkable seed that was, is and would be the true basis of self-reliance. The Imperialists awarded a Nobel Prize no wonder the man who helped in driving out this seed. In a similar way the person who was responsible to do a similar job in our country was also given an award and to this date he is the top person and an adviser to this inhuman Government, which is destroying the biggest chunk of our people, namely the peasantry. The local agent is none else than the Seed-Scientist M.S. Swamynathan. But all these things can never make any sense to our shallow and Pseudo-Marxists. Hence in their world there is no imperialism at all. Every kind of scientific discovery has to be good. Only thing is that they can be abused. Hence according to these shallow Marxists Borloge’s work can be really good under Socialism. Such is their logic. This is another example of the mental slavery and imbecility of the English educated section (which no doubt includes the biggest chunk of ‘Marxist’ leaders) of this land.

43. However when we discuss and explain this to the villager he not merely clearly understands it but also realises the imperative need to struggle against imperialism and alter this situation. The peasant of yesterday was really an expert in the agricultural practice. His knowledge was eminently practical. He knew the crops, the inter crops, rotation of crops, the nature of the soil as well as its treatment. He knew the way to select the seeds, the quantum of water for the various crops, and the kind of ploughing. He could clearly appreciate the seasons, seasonal changes, knew when to sow and how to get the maximum benefit. He used the natural endowments to the maximum. That is the essence of season–bound agriculture. He was not an unfortunate victim or slave of the vagaries of nature as a helpless being. He did not simply prostrate before nature. Marx did not know anything about the true nature of tropical agriculture. Well, it was not his fault. So, we can excuse him for his mistaken notion of the peasants of India.

44. The peasants of India actually invited nature to help him. He knew the art and the moods of her. He knew the art of bringing the tunes of nature to full play to assist him to the highest. It was essentially due to the timing. That is the meaning of using the seasons. His knowledge was the tested product of several hundreds of generations.

45. Only today he is made a big fool. He is compelled to depend upon these modern doctors who are really quacks; they are the latest black–magicians who prescribe all sorts of potions, which he has to gulp on pure faith often with disastrous results. The blame is invariably put on him on the pretext that he is superstitious, illiterate and incapable of scientific attitude. No doubt he cannot understand the strange language or the symbols that these modern magicians use invariably to baffle and threaten the poor peasants and thereby make them tamely prostrate before them. Who are these? They are the abject slaves of their Imperial masters. These men and women are educated only to intimidate and cow down our peasants. That is the main aim of the so-called higher education. The present day elite is not merely useless for the people of this land but actually harmful. They are the agents of the most vicious monster, the Modern Imperialism.

46. The peasant is not merely prevented but actually incapacitated to use remarkable advantages of nature because the season–bound agricultural practice is rejected. The native seeds are not there. He is coerced to go in for the hybrid seed, which is invariably, a pest– producing one. Further he has to pay a high price also for these seeds. Further he is compelled to produce such crops that are needed by the industrial and commercial houses.

47. How are we to explain this method and the dominant attitude behind this so-called scientific method? It is the attitude of the machine-dependent culture. This is the dominant attitude from modern Europe and U.S., which is just its extension. Machine can be run at any time. It will work with the same efficiency. However it has to be insulated from nature. Sunlight, wind, rain etc., all can only reduce its efficiency and finally incapacitate it. It is hence the very opposite of life. What destroy the machine are the very things that are needed for the continuity of life. Season-bound way in agriculture is the best way. This was clearly appreciated in the tropical belt where you have teaming millions of animal population. Further it was the easiest and the most economical way also. It makes the peasant quite an active as well as a useful component in the Eco-system. He became almost by instinct conservationist and his work was based on a sound ecological basis.

48. On the contrary the so-called scientific Agro-technology is basically Eco–destructive. It is highly wasteful. It cannot use the natural advantages. Hence it is highly costly. Such Eco-destruction is most harmful to the poorer sections of the peasant community. It is this section that is affected immediately. It becomes pauperised. This is clearly witnessed in today’s conditions in most of our villages, which have opted, to this method of agriculture. Such a Pauperisation is also advantageous to the neo-rich in the rural as well as in the urban areas. These neo-rich are not at all the old feudal elements. However all these changes are not at all appreciated by the bookish Marxists because they are not in their ‘Sacred books.

49. Hence all this talk of self-reliance is a farce. Its local agents who rule this land are now making the most independent section of our land, namely the peasantry, the abject slave of modern Imperialism. The so-called elite as acting on the most willing pimp, so too the state. Organic farming is the way to liberate the peasantry from the stronghold of this neo-colonialism. The vested interest will hate it. It is no wonder.

50. At every step the policy was to suit the benefit of Imperialists and no doubt their agents leading to the strangulation of the peasants and no doubt ordinary people. All this is done with the sole intention of incapacitating them to revolt and freeing themselves.

Can we sum up this situation?

The Imperialists determine what the peasant produces.

The Imperialists determine how he produces.

The Imperialists determine the cost of production.

The Imperialists also determine the peasant’s very life.

51. Earlier it was just the price of the cash crop that was controlled by the market. Otherwise he was very free being who stood on his legs, his self-reliance was very real. That was based on his control over the Seed.

52. Hence the contradiction between the rural and the urban is becoming more and more acute. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening at all levels, locally, nationally and internationally. The power of the minority over the majority is increasing manifold by the fast development of the productive forces. The situation is bound to become explosive. It will have to collapse eventually.

53. All under the name of the self-reliance the ‘ultrapatriotic’ rulers of this land are now actively enslaving the entire peasantry.

54. The necessary data was obtained from Sri. S.R. Sundararaman, one of the active farmers of Satyamangalam, Periar District, Tamil Nadu. He has been an active cultivator for over three decades. He is very familiar with the traditional as well as the so-called scientific farming methods. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural department will readily accept his data, also the active agriculturists. The farm is also used as an experimental plot by Rallis Chemicals & Fertilisers India of which his brother Sri. S.R. Ramakrishnan was the Zonal Manager.

“Green revolution”

Or

War of the Neo Colonialism – on the so-called Developing

(Actually devasted) Countries

WHEAT LOSING TO WEEDS

55. THE HYBRID dwarf wheat, the hero of India’s Green Revolution, is losing out to weeds. This is one of the factors contributing to declining yields in India’s wheat belt, spread over north India. “This is just the beginning. You have got to worry now, Prof Gressel said, referring to a communication from Prof. R.K. Malik of Haryana Agricultural University on the incidence of weed resistance to chemicals. Herbicide resistance will mean losing half the crop on an average. If the infestation is very bad you have to cut the crop for hay”, Prof. Gresse said. Similar resistance to herbicides has hit over a million acres in Australia Many farmers are living with poor yields and others have turned over acres of farms for pasture. “That’s okay for a people who live on meat and potatoes and export wheat”, said

Prof Shyam Kumar

56. The illusion of peaceful coexistence has in effect prevented even a cursory analysis of Neocolonialism through Mao correctly charecterised it as fatal - That also is the main reason why the green revolution which also is post – second world war phenomenon is not rcognised as a war on the biggest section of the society, the food producing donor and really the back none of the nation.

57. The so called green revolution based on the so-called High Yielders the producers of sterile seeds, is the most vicious and at the same time very much concealed war unleashed by Neocolonialism on the so-called developing (actually devasted) nations, done with the active assistance of the collaborationist governments. The hybrid wheat the ‘hero’ has rendered thousands of bold and hard working farmers of Punjab and Haryana virtually in to destitutes and report is that around twenty thousand families are migrating annually to Canada. The immediate aim of this programme is to hound out the native seeds and thereby destroy the basis of the self-reliance of the peasant community, the largest and the most potential anti-imperialist force of the nation, which by no means can be co-opted. The co-called high Yielders such more water hence they become more succulent, thereby becoming easily susceptible to become a pray to every kind of sucking insect. For instance fulgaris that was not at all treated as a pest a decade or so back is now a major pest on I.R. 50. Let us not forget the fact that such pest prone hybrids are the aim of these research institutes such as I.R.R.C at Philippines. Such centers are invariably financed by those chemical industries, which are behind those multinationals. Continuous use of pesticides result in the emergence of more resistant strains of bacteria, fungi and insects all due to direct adaptation. (Lamarckian mode)-a disapproved BUT certainly not a disproved theory. However field studies have clearly confirmed the truth of that mode. Yet the universities are totally blind to this, so also the agricultural departments. The emergence of such resistant varieties demand once again the use of heavier dosages of the same poisons resulting in various diseases in all those that consume the products of such crops and plants that are treated by these ‘cides’ which only add huge profits for the drug companies of the same imperial nations. In this a big chunk of bogus doctors manufactured by the so-called self financing medical colleges (really factories) very gladly assist these drug companies being their conduits. Apart from all that such spraying at the first instance simply drive away the most useful natural predators like the mantids, wasps and beetles and the honeybee too, the real unpaid helpers of the peasants, while at the same time multiplying and strengthening his enemies – In a similar way the ‘fertilisers’ really kill the most necessary aid bacteria as well as earth worms rendering the soil sterile. The most powerful section, which only can revolt against the imperial domination become physically weak, crippled and destroyed of its will to revolt. It is made in to a beggar. That is the main political aim of the imperialists. This is the outcome of the global urban linkage with its headquarters at Washington. To be free from this death trap the only way is to opt to organic farming, which only can save the life-base as well as the health of the people – the precondition for any egalitarian society. Further it being based on recycling economy is highly economical, can also be practiced most efficiently even by the illiterate, which is the condition when ‘every cook can be the ruler’, the dream of Lenin. No anti-ecological modal can be the foundation of an egalitarian society – The ‘Green revolution’ based on the high Yielders can never be eco-friendly. No wonder the imperialists and their agents the advocates of Neocolonials like Dr. Singh are now singing about the second green revolution. They are keen in continuing the song of the father of the first green revolution the bogus scientist M.S. Swaminathan the American Agent who is immortalized in the book ‘Betreyers of Truth’.

58. Swaminathn’s, ‘gift’ the so called high yielding wheat has rendered the hard working peasants of Panjab and Haryana into virtual destitutes and the report is that around twenty thousand families are migrating to Canada as slaves of the lazy white land-lords. This Swamynathan the worst enemy of our people, is now being made not only a MP but also the top advisor of this government in the area of agriculture. What we can expect can be very easily understood by anyone.

The Need for The New International

59. We have to decide as to with whom we have to join and with whom not. There can be no neutrality between good and evil.

Green Revolution or The War of Neocolonialism?

60. To appreciate the relationship between the so-called green revolution and the neocolonialism we should recognize the following facts:

61. Imperialism and real peace cannot coexist.

62. U.S. of to day is the most powerful Imperialism.

63. The explosion of the atom bombs was not just to end the war or hasten peace – but also to terrorise the entire world – it was in fact the declaration the THIRD WORLD WAR.

64. U.S. Imperialists had already the dream of global domination.

65. However the illusion that the bombing was to put an end to the war and establish peace was strengthened by the declaration of the policy of peaceful coexistence, that too by the top person of Soviet Union as the general policy of Leninism. More than anything it effectively prevented even a tentative analysis of this Neocolonialism very much to the satisfaction of the Imperialists. Though the communist party of China at the initial stage did critisise both Khrushchev as well as the communist party of Soviet Union as apologists of neocolonialism and Mao charecterised neocolonialism as the most fatal one, no useful or purposeful analysis of it was done to show how it was fatal and how it differed from the earlier one. Finally the criticism tamely ended as one of super power domination and abandonment of armed struggle. The only purposeful ideological struggle would have been the one about the true nature of this neocolonialism which in a way is the very opposite of the earlier one in its strategy and it is this aspect that has created the worst illusion particularly amidst the leftists. That is the main reason why this ‘green revolution’ also a post-second world war phenomenon has not been recognised as a war, that too on the biggest section of the society, the food producing donors, the very backbone of the nation. In practice it was a policy of appeasement and an abject surrender to the aggressor. Finally such an abandonment of the anti-imperialist struggle ended in the very change of colour of China, almost erasing the very name of Marx, which even the bourgeoisie class could not do. However it cannot be the whole story.

66. As was anticipated by some of us the anti imperialist struggle has emerged in the South American context. The leaders of Bolivia and Venezuela have joined the great Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro have correctly charecterised not only the period but also the struggle as anti-imperialist and anti liberal. At this stage it is very necessary to know the background, genesis and finally the aim of Neo-colonialism and how this ‘green revolution’ fits with the economic and even more with the political aim of imperialists. The main political aim is to totally emasculate the largest potential anti imperialist force, i.e., the rural peasantry that cannot be co-opted because it cannot become a part of the exploiting group. It cannot but remain the largest exploited section. Regarding the so-called developmental programme (actually devastated) Nigeria (Africa) is the classic example. Regarding the fight against terrorism, though the whole world knows that the U.S. of today is really the breeder of such terrorism because it is the biggest terrorist state Iraq and Afghanistan are enough examples. Apart from all that a study of the transnational corporations, the role of the g-8, and that of the U.N. is very essential. Finally we have to find out the ways and means to defeat the most fatal imperialism. We should study the history of the class struggle of the last 150 years, the background for the nemesis of the neocolonialism. Hence we need an International, which will continue the work of the third international of Lenin. (Not that of Stalin). It is now the duty of comrade Castro to give the call. F Castro is the only right person to give such a call. Hence the urgency.

Evaluation

19^th Century The century of illusion

The sun never sets in the white man’s empire.

Modern science is the way to know the objective truth.

End justifies the means and might is right.

The western path is the path.

67. Marx though was ac critic of capitalism did not dispel the illusion because he too advocated a western path. The Asian societies remained a challenge to his unilinear theory – He did not draw any fruitful lesson from that – so that he only added strength to the illusion – which persists to this day amidst the mighty majority of the Marxist. Hence the defeat of Marx.

68. However Marx will be remembered because he stood on behalf of the wretched underdog gave them tremendous confidence by reading history in such a way as to indicate that history was on their side and they are the creators of the future.

20^th century The century of paradox

a. Power comes through the barrel of gun.

b. Atom bomb is a paper tiger.

c. Industrilise or perish.

d. Industrilise and perish.

21^st century The century of clarity and decision

a. Atom bomb is a paper tiger.

b. Industrilise and perish.

c. Nature can provide your need, not your greed.

d. If science usurps the throne it will be tyranny.

e. Non-violence is the only way for survival.

f. Winning by yielding will only endure

g. Women will be the final liberator.

h. Ghandian Grama Rajya is the only possible egalitarian future.

Facts that should be recognised to understand the contemporary world

a. Imperialism and peace cannot co exist.

b. U.S. of today is the most powerful imperialism.

c. The explosion of the atom bomb was aimed to terrorise the colonial and semi colonial people. It was the declaration of 3^rd world war.

d. The U.S. imperialists had already the dream of global domination.

e. The ‘green revolution’ a post second world war phenomenon is the most lethal war – because it is very well a concealed one – on the largest and most potential anti imperialist rural peasantry.

f. The latest – the – last urban linkage – the post second world war phenomenon – with its headquarters at Washington is really the cancerous tissue on the living social body (Life base)

SYNOPSIS

a. The final liberation will be the gift of the mother (women).

b. Nuclear disarmament will be first step for the general disarmament.

c. The mother of Islam will initiate the great struggle –a global one – at the first instance. And it will be the great non-violent one, hence the most courageous and moral anti-imperialist.

d. The crucial role will be that of mothers’ of the Indian sub-continent.

e. It will be actively supported by the vast rural masses and it will also be the struggle to save the life base (Ecological).

f. It will also be the contribution of Islam.

THE SUMMING UP

My dear Somashekar,

Greetings.

69. I do not know whether you got my earlier letter. At any rate I want a definite reply to this letter. I hope you do realise why I am so insisting. Though I am for all practical purposes quite healthy for my age (I have finished 77. I shall be finishing 78 by Dec) you know I do not want to finish the journey as a senile vegetable. I want to contact the right persons while my mind is still alert. Though those who are immediately around me do not think that I am talking sense, I am in a better position to evaluate my own understanding. I do not think that at my stage I should bother about praise or abuse. This is what I have learnt from the great teaching – that is to be Karmayogi. I still remember a discussion that took place some 20 years back at Delhi, where I met Sri. N. S. Jaganathan who was at that time the chief editor, I think, of Financial Express (Indian Express group). After hearing my view he said “ Nagarajan you do not appear even as a mustard seed (in Tamil Kadugu), how can you say so confidently that your view will win? My answer (even today I hold the same opinion). There should be two very important criteria. It is not all necessary that I should have thousands of supporters. My view or opinion should be true and just (Sathya and Dharma). I should not get any personal benefit by holding to that opinion. I may even suffer for such a belief. Finally all should be happy. (Lokah Samastha Sukhino Bhavantu”) This is the greatest message of Gita – Karma Yoga. “Karmanyeva Adhikarasthe Ma paleshu kadachana”. Then I asked him whether my opinion or view stands up to those criteria? Secondly would he accept the criteria? In this connection I also pointed out that Lenin too accepted the same criteria while discussing about the invincibility of Marxism. He has written so too. Jaganathan accepted. Then he asked me further, “Can you see the result?” I said that I couldn’t. This revolution may extend for even two hundred years. Then I told him of a proverb in Tamil – one who plants a Palmyra seedling couldn’t eat its fruit – only his grand children can get. His final word: If this is your opinion your work will be really purposeful.

70. Today I find more and more strength gathering. However the road is not smooth. It also means that I should now define Marx, to move further. The chapter of west is closed. The last page was that of Marx & Lenin. Now that chapter has come to a close. Should that mean that we should join the Neo-liberals and accept some so called benign kind of capitalism? Never. Capitalism is only the way for the graveyard. Of course the mighty majority of every kind of socialist, Marxian and non Marxian, all has become disillusioned. Two of the greatest revolutionaries who accepted Marx and whose credentials even their enemies cannot question could not save the name of Marx. His economic plan did not show the way for any egalitarian order. That can only mean that the way or the means or the method Marx indicated has some basic flaw in it. Even though Mao who corrected the basic flaw could not solve the theoretical issue. The riddle, as Marx claimed, is yet not solved (of history). Unless you go beyond Marx & Lenin, you cannot find the way for the egalitarian order. If you do not discover the way for such a new culture, the result will be certainly ruining. There can be no escape. That was clear to Marx, when he declared “either overall reorganisation of the society at large or the ruining of the contending classes”.

71. Capitalism is inherently, through out, eco-destructive. It cannot solve in any way the ecological question. Hence it will result in extinction of this species. Indications are very clear. Of this I told in 1986 at Penang. I said to the international audience. “You are raping the Mother (earth). She will turn into a Kali and finish you, to protect her other children (animals & plants)”. This was well understood by several including the Director of Science & Technology of Switzerland& Dan Hemmingway (Permoculture) and it was Marie Orsini the Swiss woman who included me in the mailing list of the journal of climatology, edited by M. Kelly from England. At that time I spoke about the destruction of ozone, frequency of earthquakes, all due to the vandalism. However even then the so-called socialist could not think a different kind of paradigm. Prof. J.B.S. Haldane had however arrived at it when he said before 1963, that Gandhi & Marx should be blended. He also declared that Man cannot become good by being kept in cotton & wool and he has to struggle against his own evil. The evil inside us; also has an external base. Marx did not show the way. Mao clearly indicated the way (“loving service” – the message of Southern Viashnavism also is very clear & pointed). In this context we should clearly recognise the shift that Mao did and also the reason why he also finally failed. At the same time we have to examine why Haldane came to such an opinion. Gandhi also told Saklatwala, the grandson of Tata, a communist MP in England, that in the end we meet, by which Gandhi a self proclaimed anarchist declared that his vision of the future was also an egalitarian society and he added that he only differed from the communists only on the question of Means, which should include the economic foundation also. In fact Marx himself clearly says that the economic foundation is not the goal, which means that his aim is the new humanity of free beings - the brave new world, of new men and women, free from every kind of internal fear. It is in a way the Christian dream, the heaven on earth. Hence Howlet Johnson, the Red Dean of Caulis bury could say, “Christianity is the grand mother of Bolshivism”. In a similar way the Mexican Liberation Theologist actually attempts to portray Marx as the first liberation Theologist (‘Marx against Marxists’).

72. In a very essential way Marx reaches the great message of Christ, which was almost misinterpreted by the Church. The Christian message is that finally the world belongs to the meek. The meek can easily represent the working class. However, the Church promised the heaven not on this earth, but after death! So the revolutionary message of Christ was turned into a reactionary one. It was to protect the exploiting private property. Hence Christianity could be made to serve the exploiters. But Marx gives tremendous courage and confidence to the underdog by declaring that history is on its side. That was the way he read history and it also gave a good insight into the social history. It was also a kind of threat to the capitalist class. But Marx also says that the working class cannot liberate itself unless it liberates the entire society, which no doubt includes the antagonist class too. There emerges naturally the question, whether the capitalist class will allow the enslaved class to free itself, and that too when such a liberation deprives the owning class all its wealth, which is the source of its enjoyment and its freedom, though such a freedom can be called illusory. So, Lenin did conclude that the proletarian dictatorship couldn’t be a liberating power. So the entire phase cannot be in any sense a freedom for the working class also if we accept Marxian notion of freedom. When and how the realm of freedom will dawn is the most enigmatic question. This was recognised by Lenin. So he did say that there was no freedom during the entire period when there was proletarian dictatorship. Hence proletarian rule was not a liberating phase. So every class rule has to be so. Freedom was there only before division emerged in the human society. However the period from 1935 to 1949-50 in Yenan really indicated the way that would have led to the stateless situation. There the rule of the people, which can also be called some kind of dictatorship, was of a very different kind. There the contradiction between the rulers and ruled was considered as non-antagonistic contradiction. It never became at any time an antagonistic one. Its characteristic feature is that of “yield to conquer”, which is called the feminine way - that is the Taoist way. Here the relationship between the ruler and the ruled is not one of coercion. The coercive way can be called masculine. Marx & Lenin knew only the masculine kind of power. Today Scientists like Prof Needham have come to recognise that modern science and all the technologies based upon that, are masculine in character. It is an approach that treats the reality in a real way as hostile and hence it should be conquered and enslaved and no doubt exploited. That is going against the reality. Needham who studied the ancient Science & Technologies of China recognised that the great achievements of ancient china which was no wonder called oriental heaven by the west, was based upon the Taoist idea of yielding to win. This is also the foundation on which the remarkable work of Mao namely people’s war is based. Hence Mao could also conceive of the non-antagonistic contradiction or contradiction amidst the people, which is very different from the one seen between the people and their enemy. However the most fundamental relationship is the feminine. This is also reflected in the great difference between the histories of the Soviet and the Chinese communist party. That also is the reason why Mao who also was the most revered and the undisputed leader of the party was never a Stalin. None of his opponents ever was afraid of him.

73. In this context we should examine the social conditions that were developed in Yenan. Here should have developed the foundations of the new society. Many who stayed there for some time very well appreciated this. Apart from Edger Snow, Riwi Alley, Helen etc, Ralph Fox the young British communist clearly states that Yenan was the way for the future society. The Gandhians like Pandit Sundarlal, J.C.Kumarappa, and Kichu all not merely have recorded their unreserved admiration for Yenan but really have stated that it is also the Gandhian paradigm. (New China). This was written before 1955. What happened later also is very important to understand the present situation in China. Yenan was also rejected after the mainland of China was conquered and the Soviet model, the dominant Marxist ‘socialist’ paradigm was ushered. It was the beginning of the counter-revolution. The Red became gradually pink and today it is white. It is not even Radish, Red outside and white inside. All the struggles that took place after 55 did not alter the trend. The great proletarian Cultural Revolution could not alter the trend. The counter-revolution has won. Yet this cannot be the end of the story.

74. Capitalism of any kind can never solve the human problem. It will have to be eco destructive. You can never have eco-friendly capitalism. Hence it cannot be allowed. However the Marxist or other non-Marxist socialism which is expected to be built on heavy industries with the help of modern science and its technologies can never help in creating any kind of egalitarian society. Hence the defeat of Marx was inherent in the socialist programme as suggested by Marx himself. So, we have to admit that the Means proposed by Marx is against the end, the end being an egalitarian society or the new humanity. It is now necessary to examine the Means that could not help in creating socialism. We should also examine how Gandhi the anarchist differs in this. Gandhi’s vision is Grama Rajya. It is not at all based on any kind of heavy industry. It is very much a self reliant, recycling village, no doubt free from untouchability. The main thing is that the individual needs are reduced to essentials. It is done voluntarily. Gandhi insists that without such an approach the new world is simply impossible. That attitude is the only one that can help in saving the life base. The western Marxists do not properly appreciate the great significance of this.very fundamental truth.

75. In this context we should have a clear idea of the most important difference or differences between the Marxists and Gandhi. Gandhi connects man’s freedom as well as good qualities with the act of voluntary reduction of personal needs, called Aparigraha. Hence that can only be the foundation of the new humane, brave, fearless society. He expresses this in another way. He says “Industrialise and perish”, whereas all the Marxists as well as the other socialists declare “Industrialise or perish”. It did not mean that Gandhi was totally against industries and machines. He had very clear notions of them. Where we cannot but use machinery then only we should. That was clear to Gandhi & he did write so to Tata’s grandson Saklathwala. Mao walking on two legs also would have called this. This is also very much related to the problem of energy option. The egalitarian society cannot be realised if hard energy becomes the dominant or determining aspect. Soft energy only can be really eco friendly. Further it can be understood and used safely even by an illiterate. We all know that the poor illiterate women were able to carry out the tropical agricultural practices, which were based on soft energy. Only this can prevent the minority control. So, real freedom is possible only when we reduce our personal needs. Hence Gandhi rightly observed that nature could satisfy our needs but not our greed. Hence the idea of multiplication and then satisfaction of the needs can never help in the evolution of any kind of an egalitarian society. Marx did not understand this very fundamental truth. Hence his way failed. It had to. Marx and Marxists believe that multiplication of needs can be met by the development of technologies. They also think only such a satisfaction can also make people less selfish or less greedy!

76. Can this really make people free from object bondage? Never. On the contrary Gandhi’s approach (i.e. Aparigraha) only can make people more and more free from object bondage, which can only help in the evolution of a truly egalitarian society. (Voluntary rejection, never forced). Finally the western socialist programme cannot but be urban biased because it is based on the foundation of heavy industries and because of it, it will also be eco-destructive. It will soon exhaust the non-renewable fuel and will have to opt for hard energy i.e. atomic one. There can be no chance of decentralisation and hence no chance for the rule of the majority. It will be the dictatorship of the minority. The State will be invariably coercive. The Stateless condition will be only an illusion.

77. Marx finally demands high degree of intellectual equipment from the rulers. So his aim of the working class rule cannot be simply possible. Lenin solves this problem by his idea of vanguard, which was the communist party. Such an organisation above the class is not there in the writings of Marx. So, Lenin had to go against Marx. He did it so, by declaring that the conclusion of Marx could be rejected and the essence of Marx or Marxism was the method, which he characterised as “concrete study of the concrete conditions” and it was hence “a guide to revolutionary action”. Finally Mao characterised Marxism by a single aphorism: “Rebellion is justified”. We can fight for justice. This is also a very old Chinese morality! He was in a big way making Marxism a continuation of the great wisdom of the Chinese culture. That was the very correct way by which he was able to create the great revolutionary movement. His Marxism with the Chinese face could be readily understood and practiced by the apparently illiterate poor peasantry, which really created the greatest Asian Revolution to this date. We should also recognise the full impact of this revolution.

78. When Mao declared that the “Atom bomb was a paper tiger” many might have thought his was the raving of a mad man. Stalin’s opinion of Mao is clearly indicated by his naming him a “Mastodon” (Mao Tse Dung), the anti-deluvial an uncouth animal. However when the PLA liberated the entire Chinese continent defeating the army of the so-called Nationalist supported in every way by U.S, the entire world was astonished. It was simply unbelievable. The poor Asiatic people with poor weapons defeated the mighty power (US), which defeated Japan. This act gave the greatest confidence to all the non-Europeans who had been enslaved by the Europeans. Even the great Soviet Revolution did not create such an impact as the Chinese revolution. In fact Mao’s greatest contribution was that he gave the highest confidence to the enslaved humanity and shattered the myth of the superiority of the white man, one that was built in the minds of all the non-white races for over two centuries. This idea was propagated in every possible way. It was on such a foundation that Fascism was also legitimised. Even today such an idea is very much alive in one way or another. Every attempt is made to make it appear as scientific fact as though the white race is genetically and culturally a superior race. In fact Mao’s contribution will be remembered as one, which destroyed the great mental slavery. Finally Mao gave more confidence to the various peoples when he declared, “East wind will prevail over the west wind”. Though the full significance of this is yet to be understood by even by the Maoists, yet it is the truth.

79. How are we to understand this most audacious pronouncement “East will prevail over the west” of Mao? We can understand its meaning once we recognise that Marx was the last greatest thinker of the west. To day such a person’s name is being erased. However there is no one who can be called another thinker who has transcended him. That also the reason why the several movements like the ecological, red, green, feminist, peace etc are unable to unite on a principled philosophical foundation. Marxism of Marx & Lenin is no doubt unable to bring out such a unity. So, the western thought at its highest is unable to show the way. The unity of the various movements is still eclectic. To bring forth the necessary unity we should transcend the Marxism of Marx and Lenin. That leads to the Easter Marxism and that is what Mao has done. Mao has clearly indicated the way to transcend the Marxism of Marx. However it cannot be compared to the change that Lenin did with respect to Marxism of Marx. The shift Mao did is a qualitative nature. That also is the reason why many of the western Marxists doubt whether the contribution of Mao can be called Marxism at all. Even those who really admit that Mao has really contributed to the revolutionary thought do not think whether it could be called Marxist that is what Bottomore says (Dictionary of Marxism).

80. At this stage let us sum up the contribution of Marx. Only such an analysis can give us a clear idea as to the great shift that Mao has done and the way to continue it, which can help in building a new revolutionary humanist movement, which is absolutely necessary to resolve the impending crisis. It is also true that only very small section is recognising the crisis. One group, which is clearly recognising the crisis, is the one that is concerned with the ecological destruction that is happening every day all in name of development. However this ecological question is not at all properly recognised by Marxists who can be said to be faithful to Marx & Lenin. Even many so-called Maoists also do not fully realise this issue. That is also the reason why the Marxists and the green are unable to unite on a firm principled foundation. The issue is unquestionably related to the industrial bias of the Marxists. This bias is also seen in Marx himself. Lenin faithfully followed it. Hence Lenin wrote that socialism means electrification plus soviets. At Lenin’s period of industrialisation would have depended mainly on electrical energy, apparently the most clean and non-exhaustible one. Today these Marxists are running after Atomic energy all in the name of Marx, even after the catastrophic experience of Chernobyl. So, Marxism of Marx & Lenin cannot help in formulating any theoretical basis for a sound socialist ecology. Hence Bottomore writes that socialist ecology and social geography are yet to emerge or at best is in the embryonic stage.

81. Some western Marxists to find some basis are going back to the writings of the earlier Marx, to that of 1843-44, when he wrote about alienation. Many like the French Structuralist Althuser consider that Marx as the young non-mature Marx. Even in that young Marx there is very little about the fundamental relation between Man and Nature. This is very clearly brought out by the student of Adorno, namely Smidt when he deals about “Nature and Marx”. (Frankfurt school). We should know the basic defect in the understanding of Marx himself to understand this kind of seriously defective approach towards the most important and vital issue of the life base – an ecological question. This defect can be clearly seen in his non-recognition of the cognitive, creative and liberative role of love and loving service, which can be clearly seen in his epistemology, which are in the eleven formulations on Feurbauch. There is not even a hint of his appreciation of the great role of love. The same has to be reflected in his ontology too. The relation between Man & Nature (non-human) is essentially antagonistic. This is also found in the understanding of Darwin whose work Marx almost uncritically accepted. (Theory of Natural selection). In Darwin’s explanation of the origin of the various species of animals, Marx claims that he found the objective scientific basis for his thesis of class struggle to human history or social evolution and finally he concludes that the riddle of history is solved. It means we should evaluate Darwin’s theory of Natural selection. Finally Darwin’s explanation is based on the notion of competition, elimination and selection where the fit survives and all the weaker beings are eliminated. The role of cooperation and altruistic association are treated as marginal and apparently has no role in organic evolution. Darwin apparently drove out the idea of teleology or end of goal seeking trends in the field of organic evolutionary process. This is also the most fundamental idea of Neo Darwinism, which says that mutations are random changes and evolution is essentially opportunistic. Darwin claims that one of the ideas that inspired him was that of Malthus (Essay on population). The other idea was already satirised by the great Irish satirist Jonathan Swift in his remarkable satire Gulliver’s travels, where in he in an ironical manner satirises the idea of random changes, leading to remarkable organised poems by sheer jumbling of words written on the surface of the cubes which are tilted on a tray! It is quite possible that Darwin could have got the idea of natural selection from Swift though he has not mentioned so. However Darwin himself admits that if altruism were to be selectively advantageous to the species his theory would be wrong. Perhaps Marx did not know about this observation of Darwin. In this connection it is necessary that we should also know what Marx said about Love. When his guru Feurbauch began to toy with the idea of creating a religion based on love because he perhaps felt deeply that Atheism would create a kind of spiritual vacuum among the people; when Marx and even Engels came to know of this they simply chided him by saying that Feurbauch had become rusticated and had abandoned politics. They did not take any trouble to search as to why Feurbauch, the convinced atheist should seek to create an ideology based on love. In the same way Marx never cared to understand the full meaning of the declaration of the Catalan mystic, Ramon Lull, who declared that “Love unites that are free and frees that are united”, which finally would mean that freedom or free relationship is nothing but loving relationship which really transcends all other relationships. Marx just demands a change in the production relationship from hostile and inimical one to harmonious one, which is equated with free relationship. Hence he wrote, “All consequences are contained in the proposition that the producer is related to the product (which may be anything) in a hostile and inimical manner”. Hence his demand is the change of this relationship. It means that Marx does not see freedom or free relationship beyond economic relationship. Perhaps any kind of inequality, for Marx, is inimical for free relationship. Hence he could not transcend the idea of economic equality, which also is implied in production relationship. Free relationship can be really enduring only when it transcends equality because in reality inequality of one kind or another is the norm. Haldane the Marxist biologist fully realising it wrote “Inequality of Man” and stated that he supported the similar idea of Plato!

82. In our great tradition, the relationship between the infinite mighty and the relative puny or tiny there could be free relationship, if it were to be based on love. That also is the most joyous relationship between lovers. This was, in his own way, recognised by Lenin. This is the most fundamental omission in the foundation of Marxism of Marx and that of the mighty majority of the Marxists. This is not the unique feature of Marxism or that of the European Enlightenment. We find the same in the philosophy of Adi Shankara too. It is the characteristic feature of every kind of Gnana Marga, be it even the materialist Gnana Marga. Shankara cannot distinguish between even the divine love and lust. For him every kind of love is a variety of Moha and the woman is always a Mohini an enchantress. She is the Maya. Of course Marx and Lenin did not go to that extent of Shankara. Yet they too were non-feminists. Those who do not recognise the great role of love invariably will be at best non-feminists but mostly anti-feminists. In our tradition only the Bakthi Margis who accept the role of love are really the feminists. However even amidst the Bakthi Margis certain amount of male chauvinism can be witnessed. This male chauvinism and male domination cannot vanish by the so-called resolution of the class conflict, as Marx and Lenin as well as the majority of the socialist want us to believe. Only when we realise that the final liberation of mankind will be possible by the woman only, then by the real necessity the change will take place but it will not in any way result into the feminine domination but in the establishment of a truly loving relationship between the two sexes. The great role of love can be fully realised only when we recognise the liberative role of woman. It is the only kind of liberation that can really win over the adversary or the oppressor that too with his happy cooperation. It is not the one that can be done by the working class! Further the liberation cannot be just a single, sudden act, from ‘realm of necessity to that of freedom’. It is finally liberation process – active liberation – by the liberating activity. However for Marx & Marxists in general the liberation is almost a sudden jump. The proletarian power is not realised by a loving activity. It is a forcible overthrow of the state and the power-pride of the adversary class, which is meant also to expropriate the property of the enemy class as well as destroy his power. It is an act of high coercion. It is not at all for an establishment of any loving relationship. That is the reason why the working class or even the male cannot liberate mankind. Only the woman the great mother can deliver Mankind – she saves herself (prakrithi), which is the saving of the life base. It also means that final delivery of mankind is an inseparable part of the liberation of woman as well as the saving of the life base.

83. It is now necessary to know how this great task can be carried out. Finally the private property system can come to an end only after a change in the human attitude towards needs. This was very clear to Gandhi. Hence he demands the reduction of personal needs that to voluntarily. The great revolution is going to be in future that is to be at the same an ecological one. The ecological problem can never be solved unless the destructive capitalist way of production system (aim of production) is scraped. It means the liquidation of that kind of private property system with profit as its aim. This will be the greatest demand of this feminist struggle. The choice before is either overall destruction or reorganisation. The demand is from the woman. It cannot but be yielded. That will be the only way to transcend the capitalist system. It can be called in the Gandhian language Shramadhan, Bhoomidhan, Gramdhan and Sampathdhan and so forth. It will not hence be the result of coercion. Appropriation by coercion will only leave the unhealing wound. It can never lead to an egalitarian order. The history of the last one-century is an enough proof. There is no need for any further proof. The liberation of mankind is intimately related to the liberation of this life base also, which means a healthy, reciprocal mutually nurturing relationship. That is the way to humanise nature and naturalise this human being. That also is clearly enshrined in the upanishadic aphorism “athmavat sarva bootheshu yah pashyathi sa pashyathi”(“one who sees ones own self in every being only sees the truth”) and “lokhah samsthah sukhino bhavanthu”. It is the way Red, Green, Feminism can unite and it is the precondition for the new culture the really brave new world, one without any fear. It is only at that stage the Anarchist and the Marxist can unite. Such a revolution of necessity has to be a non-violent one. Hence I have to conclude that Marxian means runs counter to the Marxian goal. So Marx is against Marx! In the case of Gandhi, he did not also recognise the true deliverer. So his aim was also not realised because he did not recognise the means (upaaya). Hence he too was not a feminist.

84. At this stage we have to define Marx. To understand Marx, we can examine his evaluation of others, particularly of other great men. Marx was a great admirer of Shakespeare and also Darwin. Let us evaluate Shakespeare and Darwin. Shakespeare was an anti feminist. Most of the women in his dramas are cruel. Their names are modifications of such names like Dragon. His drama also bears the name “Taming of the Shrew”. Even in Othello, the woman name Desdemona, is a combination of De & Demon. The male who kills the partner is a black fellow, a moor. His racist attitude is quite clear. The cruel male is a black person. Finally live in the tempest the island is the non-European world, where only cannibals (caliban) live and they are fit only to be slaves and the magic (which today is the modern science & technology) can be freely used to chain and make them serve. It is such a Shakespeare that is very much admired by Marx. But he cannot admire a real humanist, free from national and racial prejudices and who could see woman in a very different light and also praise the simple virtues of the rural society and one who could see the ugliness in the urban, which was almost hidden to Marx, which he could justify as historically inevitable. No wonder the works of Goldsmith bear such titles like “She stoops to conquer” (a Taoist idea, may be due to the influence of the Chinese philosophy of Mencius), Vicar of Wakefield, Deserted Village, City night peace, national prejudices, citizens of the world etc.. Man in Black and China man are wise men in Gold Smith.

Footnote: -

1. His name Othello- is also a combination of “of the low or even of the Hell. That is a real reflection of Shakespeare’s attitude of the non-white races.

2. In Merchant of Venice the women to appear as a lawyer (an intellectual) has to wear a male dress and her name Portia is a combination of three sounds Pu, Ru, Sha-which means Male in Sanskrit. His opinion women cannot be gifted intellectually.

3. Wakefield – awakened village (Rural)

85. Marxs notion of the rural is very clear when he describes the Asiatic societies, of China and Hindustan. He characterises the Asiatic societies as stagnant, semi-barbarian etc, and calls the Hindus superstitious beings that worship the monkey (Hanuman) and Cow (Sabala). He did not worry to examine that the ideas of such societies were those propagated by the expansionist white men. He had very little idea of a Buddha or a Tao. For him civilisation obviously starts from Ionia (Greece). The way to progress was the western one. He was finally an urban man the old Jew Cain who killed his brother Abel (Rural). The final resolution is making an urban world. He was a Karma Gnana margi, even there of a poorer variety. Lenin did not alter the basic position of Marx; hence he too could not show the path. Marx stood in the way & hid the true vision. Lenin the Nanda could not get the vision of the Lord because of the huge bull, which blocked the vision! He too remained a non-feminist. This is reflected in his criticism of Rosa Luxemburg’s dialectics, through no doubt justifiable, he extended it to say that it is the general defect of women. In short women are at that point treated as intellectually inferior, though he did not at any time question their revolutionary role. Hence we can only call him non-feminist. The one who makes the great shift is Mao, thanks to his heritage. He was not only a master in dialectical thinking but equally knew the feminine approach too. Hence he could see the other way of yielding to win, as the way the weak wins the powerful. His great work Peoples’ War is essentially feminist approach. He clearly states that the aim is, to know the way as to how the weak can win the powerful, and it is such an approach that leads to the great idea of loving service and struggling against self. In a real way Mao’s Marxism is very much a Chinese one. Hence many Marxists even doubt whether he can be called a Marxist at all. At this stage we should also know as to how he too finally is defeated after the entire mainland was conquered. In short it was a change from the Yenan way. The new model was the Soviet model with its emphasis on heavy industries and corresponding educational system etc. Just as in Soviet Union, the economic developmental model with its emphasis on heavy industries swallowed the soviets and paved the way for capitalism. So also in China the Soviet model destroyed the vision, the way for the egalitarian society, which was clearly indicated in Yenan. The great proletarian Cultural Revolution was also defeated. Finally it was the great shadow of Marx and Lenin – that defeated Mao – the shadow was the dominant developmental paradigm. –

The following evaluation and conclusions were the inevitable result of the declaration of Mr. Bush (Jr).

ANTHYODHAYA – The Final Vision

The Longest Revolution - Total Revolution Also

“Love unites that are free, frees that are united” –

Ramon lull

86. The present situation is the culmination of unprincipled compromises done with the most vicious and powerful imperialism. Lenin as one of Imperialism and proletarian revolution characterized the period immediately after the First World War and the establishment of Soviet Union. According to him Imperialism was the vanishing one and the proletarian revolution the growing one. He believed that the European working class would make the socialist revolution in Europe. He was no doubt disappointed. However he pinned his hope and faith in the colonial struggle against the European Imperialism.

87. However even during that period the Soviet government did enter into opportunist compromises with the Imperialist power. In 1921 Soviet Union and Imperialist England entered into an agreement where by each party would refrain from hostile action against each other, direct or indirect. The Russian government it declared will refrain from any attempt by military or diplomatic or any form of action against British interest or British Empire, especially in India and in the independent state of Afghanistan.

88. Later on this trend became almost the generally policy. Finally Khrushchev called it the general policy of Leninism, when he coined the policy of peaceful coexistence with Imperialism. However the policy was also the one upheld by Stalin. Stalin in fact put every effort and pressure on the Chinese communist party to come to a compromise with Chiang and abandon the struggle for the national liberation. The same was his attitude or policy in the European context. His compromise with the French Imperialists and Italian capitalism and sabotaging the Greek revolution prevented Europe from becoming Socialist, though after the end of the second world war the chances were excellent for such a revolution in Europe.

89. At the same time by the end of the Second World War and in fact as the result of the two world wars the U.S had become the most powerful Imperial nation. Further the CPSU did everything in every possible way to prevent genuine peoples’ liberation in the former colonial area. The same policy was more openly followed by the so called anti Stalinists all under the grand slogan of peaceful coexistence. This admirably suited U.S Imperialism. However the one area, which became the bone of contention was the Middle East (Islamic land) because it was the oil-bearing area and just not simply a desert. Yet it was not possible for Soviet Union to gain any control there. It became an area where the U.S gained all the control. Then came the first shock i.e., the Iranian revolution and the U.S lost that area once the Shah was driven out. It was then the U.S began to cultivate and arm Saddam who obliged the U.S by his eight years war on Iran.

90. How many Muslim children and youth died, and how many became orphans & lame -no one can tell. The Zionists should have been supremely happy. Let us also not ignore the fact that the U.S did not use the Jews in this war against the Islamic people. It divided very greatly the Islamic people made them kill each other. A section of Mullahs also helped in that war for which once again it is the Islamic people that are paying.

91. When Saddam started to take possession of Kuwait, U.S started its war against their Chela Saddam. Was it due to any love for the people of Kuwait? Can it be? It can never be. In all probability the Zionists may have become a bit panicky. They can not be happy at all if a person like Saddam became more powerful both economically and militarily- The Zionists are the very force for the U.S Imperialists to control the middle East. So the US. Ruling section has to accept the dictate of the Zionists.

92. When Gorbaschev prostrated before Bush (Senior) and the Chinese traitor absconded the green signal was given and the first war against Iraq became certainty. Saddam did not expect that U.S would make a war against him. For this act Gorbaschev was made a Nobel laureate. Today the Black rich fellow Annan has prostrated at the feet of Bush (Jr) and killed for all practical purposes the U.N. He too is now a Nobel laureate! The second war against Iraq was a forgone conclusion. The third Nobel laureate may be Mr. Modi.

93. The other part of the story should also be clearly realized. When Saddam obliged the U.S Imperialists and no doubt the Zionists also by killing millions of Muslim, it was not prevented by a sizable section of Mullahs. In fact a good section of the Jamat Islami leadership in India was quite happy that Saddam was waging a war on the Shiahs- They were greening the Mosques from the petro- dollars doled by a section of degenerated Sheiks of Arabia who were donating millions for renovating the Zoo in London while thousands of black Muslim children were dying with out water and food in parts of Africa. Several scholars reported this to me from Tanzania and other places. Their appeal for help fell on the deaf ears of these Arab Sheiks. Today the people of Iraq are paying most dearly. The real enemy is quite happy. To day U.S imperialists are trying to come to some kind of an understanding with the Mullahs in Iran and also with Libyan leader Gaddafi. Imperialism is dividing the Muslim world into irreconcilable hostile camps on a permanent basis –which will be the way to destroy them. The reactionaries in the Islamic world are ably assisting the enemies. Whoever divides the people, under any name or pretext and make them kill each other cannot but be the conscious or unconscious agent of the most vicious imperialism. There can be no other explanation.

94. So also is the history of the Taliban of Afghanistan. The blind Mullah was very happy to kill his own people when the bitterest enemy of mankind supplied guns and money. The most backward sections of the Afghan youth were supplied such weapons. They were also trained in Pakistan. They could not understand what was right or wrong. Anyhow these reactionary Mullahs who were expected to drive away the pro-soviet section, which was for some time the ruling group, used them. Here also religion was used to cover the most heinous crime committed against the poor people of Afghanistan. When the house was cleared and when the Mullah would not completely oblige the U.S imperialists the same Taliban was declared terrorist and so on. Till that time the genocide was quite acceptable- because Taliban was establishing Washington’s brand of democracy. Today the people of Afghanistan are paying the same price-very much the women and the children. Whoever shakes hands with U.S Imperialism of today will go the same way of Saddam and Taliban. There is no doubt about it. Bin Laden was very much a C.I.A man. He worked for U.S against the pro Soviet rulers who ruled Afghanistan for some time. Today he is on the run. No country is safe if only U.S declares that Bin Laden may be hiding in that country. Mr. Bush has openly declared –which even Hitler did not dare. He has declared! “I am the monarch of all I survey, my right there is none to dispute, from the center all round to the sea I am the lord of the fowl and the brute” Bush represents the Neo fascist trend which is the culmination of Neo Imperialism. Not merely that, he has also the biggest arsenal of the most lethal weapons which he will most gladly and readily use with impunity on any nation on any pretext. He reminds us of the fable of wolf and the lamb. The word genocide has simply vanished out of his dictionary. Today the most unenviable person is the Pakistan leader General Musharaf. He is riding on the most vicious tiger, that too a very hungry one. He had the dream of a great empire. It is now shattered to pieces. At any rate the people of Pakistan may have to pay most heavily. In fact the Pakistan people are now caught in like the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. If Advani obliges Mr. Bush, which is quite to his liking the Indian people will also meet the fate of the Afghan and Iraq people. Let there be no doubt. Years back Prof. M.L. Sondi who was also at that time a very important person in BJP told me that Advani may be the cause of our ruin. He was not very much wrong when you see how gladly Mr. Advani had shaken hands with the Zionist

95. Now emerges the most important issue. How are we to bind the hands of Bush and company? Neither the Russian nor that of the Chinese nor even that of an Islamic bomb can in any way check or diffuse the Bush –bomb. A single bomb from any one will unleash a hundred from Bush which he will deliver with the greatest pleasure – The neo fascist gang with all the media support will back Bush and the American public will be made to accept and support the Bush war. It will be declared that the security of America is the only guarantee for the safety of the free world in general and Europe in particular. Hence it is not at all the way to tie the hands of Bush and co. However the Bush –bomb has to be rendered a paper-tiger .It is not a paper tiger as such. Mao knew that the Atom bomb was not a paper tiger as such. But it can be and hence should be made into a paper tiger. Can it be made possible? Mao showed the way to make it a paper tiger. Then arises the question. Who will do it? How can it be done? These are the biggest problems facing mankind. Let us not forget the fact that this is not just a problem of one people or even of one race. It is the problem facing mankind. That also is the reason why it will be possible to check Mr. Bush and make this Bush –bomb a paper tiger. That was the central issue of ‘peoples’ war’ also that of Gandhi; The problem is how a “weak people can defeat a powerful enemy”

96. Most of the admirers of Mao go on just repeating the one pronouncement namely ‘power comes from the barrel of the gun,’ that too not understanding the full meaning of it. The full meaning can be understood when we see the other two statements. It is the same Mao who did declare. ‘we can win this war (war against Japan) with millet and bullet and which was followed by the most famous statement that ‘atom bomb is a paper tiger’. In all these statements the emphasis is concerned with the weapons. However superior the weapons could be they can not decide the fate of man. If superior weapons could decide the fate of man the slave has no chance of freedom at all. Hence Mao clearly points out that Man and Morality or Just only could finally decide the outcome. That was also the firm opinion of Gandhi who naturally hailed Sathyagraha, non co-operation and non-violent struggle all of which can very well be essential aspects of peoples’ war. They are the weapons of the boldest and only they can defeat the mightiest weapon like the atom bomb. The Bush bomb is the weapon to enslave or kill while the other weapon is to liberate and give life. The bigger and decisive one is the people, no doubt fighting for a moral cause. However we cannot use a weapon that gives all the advantages to the adversary. So also is the method. That is the essence of peoples’ war. Unfortunately many admirers and followers of Mao not at all properly appreciate this. They invariably quote only one sentence namely “Power comes through the barrel of gun” that too never fully understanding it. In this context we should also mention what Mao seems to have told Mr. Menon then the Indian Ambassador that India produced only one revolutionary and that was Gandhi. If the sentence that power comes through the barrel of gun were to be only one that Mao had said there would not have been any difference between Mao and Hitler. Every Fascist just believes that power comes only through the barrel of gun.

97. This century is going to be the most decisive one so far as mankind is concerned. If this neo fascism represented by Bush –Blair and Co triumphs it will be the beginning of the end of mankind. The prophecy of Marx “Either overall reorganization of the world at large or the ruining of contending classes will become true. Hence I call this the problem of mankind. Neo Fascism is the expression of the unlimited arrogance of Man. Before your fate is settled your mind is destroyed. God saves those whom it makes at first compassionate. This should be explained clearly to the people of the so-called advanced countries, particularly to the mothers and women in general; ‘The future educator should be educated’.

98. The hue and cry of millions of black, brown, yellow and red men will not in the least soften the heart of latest monsters that even Hitler will envy. The army should not be of men. This greatest battle will be the mother’s battle for her child. We have to make the mothers of the white race to which the adversary belongs come to the streets in thousands in every town. They should be prepared to accept the highest of punishments for deliberately violating the law and order. They have to be totally unarmed. This will be the highest of non-violent struggle. The adversary, the heartless male should shudder and finally bow his head totally ashamed. The young soldiers should throw away their guns and join this greatest protest movement. The banner is that of Love. The slogan cannot but be that freedom is the outcome of love’. “Love unites that are free and frees that are united” Such a love is extended to the adversary too. Only such an approach can really appeal to the Christian world. Then we are bound to witness the great change. In the last analysis it is the truth and justice that will triumph.

99. Then arises the question as to how we can realize this. That is the biggest question .How are we to make the mother of the white race to take up such a task is the crucial issue.

100. It will be possible once the Muslim mothers emerge out in a similar way and appeal to them as sisters. What should be the form of such an appeal is the most important issue. Let us not forget the fact that the most sinister campaign has been going on in the Christian world in general and amidst the white people in particular for a long time that the most dangerous enemy of them would be finally a Muslim. Is this not the essential content of the work, which bears the title; ‘the man who saw the future’, the apparent prophesy of one Nostrodamus? It is undoubtedly the most cleverly concocted story. Yet to day Bin Laden has added strength to that story. The story’s main aim cannot but to create an inveterate hatred towards the Islamic people in the minds of white youth in particular. This psychology or attitude should be erased. The white mothers and youth should be made to realize the fact and truth. That should be the aim of the appeal of the Muslim mothers. The Muslim mothers should appeal to the mothers of the white race as sisters; they should clearly explain that they are against every kind of terrorism, what ever be the name and they are to struggle for a peaceful world. They should at the same time very much appeal to the Muslim youth, their boys and girls not to lend any support to any kind of terrorism. When Muslim mothers with their children come out on the streets in this way being prepared to accept the highest punishment from their own government, openly defying the law and order, that too gladly, with open arms the Muslim women will also be on the truly emancipatory path. In fact the most inhuman male chauvinistic Taliban, which is the worst enemy of the great prophet, has to be defeated. This is the only way to achieve it. That also is the most courageous struggle. Talibanism is only the other side of Bush –Blair’s Fascism. They are to day doing the same work. Taliban as well as a section of Jamath Islami group was really helping most willingly the most sinister force -supporting the war against Iran because it was a Shia land. Only to day after the attack on Iraq, Jamath Islami leaders are slowly waking. By fighting this most anti Islamic trend of the Taliban the Muslim mothers will be able to defeat the Zionist groups also. Only by doing so we will be able to bring the Jewish mothers too into this great protest movement. It will then be the starting point of the greatest liberation struggle of a global nature. Only such a woman’s struggle will bind the hands of the Neo fascists and create really a peaceful world. It will create a world of brothers and sisters. It will also be the great role of Islam the last great religion. This will be epic story of the century.

101. Development of Capitalism – Marx claimed solved the riddle of history – He wrote his Anthyodaya – Communist Manifesto

102. The ugliness of the Modern European Culture – His own rich cultural heritage, South African experience - General Smutt’s defeat – gave the insight for Gandhi – his Anthyodaya the Grama Rajya.

103. Mao – indicated the base – admired by the Gandhians as the foundation of the new civilization – Yenan – that too vanished

104. Mao did declare that Neo colonialism was fatal yet did not really expose its nature also did not show the way to defeat it.

105. Because of the Bush declaration and the failure of the earlier revolutionaries I am able to see the deliverer and the final Anthyodaya. Eastern Marxist. (Blending of Mao and Gandhi)

My dear Chandra

106. Greetings. Thanks for your EM. Got the Just Commentary Vol 4 – No.3. Glad to learn about Greater Jihad. The great truths (Eternal) are discovered by the earliest saints; later they are restated. They are the eternal. The unique are transient. Contextual, and relative. However the relative have to express the eternal – the absolute. Kindly examine. This is also what I have tried to explain in my article ‘Living Marx’.

107. Now let me pass on to the subject on hand. It is concerned with ‘Anthyodaya’ the ‘Final Vision’. The communist manifesto was the Anthyodaya of Marx. He declared that the riddle of history was cleared. Capitalism has exposed the hidden truth i.e., the class struggle. This explosive dynamic capitalism was bound to demolish every kind of ‘Chinese Wall’ and caste barriers finally putting an end to particular history of the various peoples and the next phase will have to be the class-less one and global. Thus capitalism was the penultimate phase…. So he declared “either overall reorganization of Society at large or the ruining of Contending classes”. However, it did not happen. The other way was indicated by Cecil Rhodes – leading to Imperialism – which shifted the burden on a different shoulder – also made the industrial working class of Europe a part of the exploiting class – The European working class also now become a part of the Positive Side – while the Colonial lands became the restless Negative to use the Hegelian (Marxist) terminology. Marx and Engels expected that the European working class will carry out the Socialist revolution and it will be the starting point of Global Socialist transformation. That was also the expectation of Lenin. However, Lenin was disappointed. The European working class was not interested even in its own freedom. Further Marx builds his socialism on the economic foundation of heavy industries – depending upon the advanced modern sciences and high technologies – which mean expert producing and expert demanding education – and also based upon more ad more centralization of almost everything. Further Marx never discussed about the problem of Needs. He assumes the multiplication of needs and satisfaction of them – thanks to technology. Can such a foundation be conducive for the evolution of an egalitarian society? Secondly, Marx to Lenin – never raised the Question of the Quality of the people who will take up such a great task. The working class was expected to realize such a society. Finally, Marx did not also recognize the cognitive, creative and liberative role of Loving Service. The Marxist epistemology was not fundamentally different from the one implied by modern-Science. In short, his method (including epistemology) was the impenetrable wall and barrier for his dreamland. None of the Contradictions is solved – So the fate of S.U.

108. In the case of Gandhi’s Anthyodaya– it is Gram Rajya. It is also a peaceful non-exploitative Society – one that Marx and the entire Anarchists dream. His Gram Rajya’s foundation is not heavy industry or modern sciences. His epistemology can incorporate loving service. Further he is very clear about the issue of needs. Reduction of personal needs is the basis of a new egalitarian society, one in which we will not find jealousy, hatred and vendetta, etc. Further, it is based on a self-reliant economic basis – a recycling economy – each unit with a small population. So his Anthyodaya is a world of millions of villages, where the urban will not be in any way a determining aspect. It does not need experts – or expert demanding education too. Here the several contradictions of which Marx discusses are really resolved. This was also indicated by Prof. JBS Haldane the Marxist Scientist – while discussing on size of living organisms. In fact, the new egalitarian society was very much hinted at Yenan – which was the firm basis of the Chinese revolution. The Gandhians like Pandit Sunderlal, Kumarappa and Kichlu very much admired the Yenan Society when they visited Yenan in the 50s and declared that it was what Gandhi wanted to build. However, Yenan was for all practical purposes rejected and forgotten once the mainland of China was conquered and the Soviet model was ushered; and no wonder socialism became once again a daydream. The great struggle that was launched in the name of the proletarian Cultural Revolution only created the dominance of the capitalist readers and isolated the true revolutionaries.

109. In the case of Gandhi, through his vision of the egalitarian society was really more realistic, he expected the wrong class of the wrong group to carry out the task. So his Anthyodaya was also not realized. However, both of them did not recognize the true liberator. While Marx expected the working class to liberate, Gandhi perhaps thought the good people in the society may realize it. Both did not think or even imagine that the true deliverer could be the Woman.

110. In this context, we should examine the issues that were central in the ideological debate between C.P.S.U & C.P.C. Even while Mao was very much alive, was there any discussion on the role of the proletariat in liberating the entire society? It was not at all discussed in a thorough way. The possible role of women was not at all even an issue. The proletariat was accepted as the liberator – The Chinese revolutionaries may have accepted the philosophy of the proletariat but may have said that the execution would be by the poor peasants – as it was done in China. The towns being surrounded by the revolutionary forces of the rural area – by the rural peasants’ army. Even then, there was almost no discussion on the nature of the Socialist Society nor the way in which the State will wither away. Even on decentralisation there was no discussion at all. It is true that Mao characterized Neocolonialism as the most fatal one. However, regarding the most determining role of women and non-armed, nonviolent nature of the struggles against this Neocolonialism, there was not even a hint, let alone a discussion.

111. It appears that the liberation of Woman is a very necessary aspect of Anthyodaya. Such an Anthyodaya is realized only when Neo-Fascism appears on the scene, threatening the very survival of mankind. Bush the spokesman of Neo Fascism had not emerged when Mao was alive. Hence the great as well as the absolutely necessary role of the Woman was not clear even to the great revolutionary whose work ‘People ‘war’ is the first and essentially feminist document on war … which only raised the issue of Loving Service – as the foundation.

112. However today we can readily see the truth. If Woman does not take this task unquestionably the noblest one, we can not stop the in humanism of Neo Fascism. At the same time, it is the only call of freedom where the ‘enslavement’ also is to be free and enjoyable, which means the enslaver too can be really happy, simply because it is a call and or a recall for the establishment of loving relationship. It does not hence deprive the subjugator of his joy and pleasure. It is not a threat or even a challenge. Hence it only can be the truly liberating call. It is not at all the appeal of the working class and it cannot be also. Such an appeal from the working class can have no impact. The working class cannot also defeat the Master-class by other means. On the contrary, the call of liberation of Woman assures the master his highest pleasure. Hence the call of the Woman will win. That also is the way to defeat Zionism, which is the mirror image of Nazism. In fact, it was the German Nazism that has produced and strengthened this Zionism. Neonazism cannot be defeated by the arms – The non-armed, nonviolent woman’s struggle, under the great banner of love and loving service to all, is the highest form of Peoples’ war. Such a war is the only that can defeat the most powerful adversary. It is from such a point of view I am criticizing the Palestinian leader Arafat. He should turn to the method suggested by Gandhi to the German Jews to meet the menace of Nazism of Hitler. The Jews did not accept the Gandhian way. They also died in millions. This is the method by which the weak can defeat the mighty; the tiny can bind the mighty. Did not Sahadeva the tiny Baktha tell the viswarupy the mighty Baghwan that he can bind Him by love? However in such a case, the adversary should be one who cannot live without the other. Peoples’ war is the only one that shows the way, which can win the adversary – with the willingness of the adversary. Hence, the victory is real and enduring.