Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:10, 5 January 2008

India: Politics B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.

some supporter of cpim has added this "However, Indian Express reported later that court acquited Madhani from all charges and it is widely believed it was a conspiracy and human rights violation, to put him in jail for long years without trial citing "http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=90296",however the supporter has forgotten that the report was an agency report (PTI/UNI), where as my first source referred by Indian express reporter on the "MADHANI " issue ,and the second is an Editorial!.further irony is that assuming but agreeing that the agency report(http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=902960 on CPIM's secular credentials are correct, to say that "Indian Express reported later" was without commonsense .what is latter is the editorial of Express...there fore i am deleting this added and biased portion for gross violation of objectivity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.11.54 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the words Propaganda from Vehicle and Poster. Although I support BJP, This is just plain wrong.--71.163.67.245 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'Propaganda' is not a negative word amongst the communist parties. See Agitprop. As per the descriptions the vehicle was not taking part in election campaign, and the 'poster' was made of plastic so i don't know if poster is the correct word. --Soman 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation from Malayalam

Can anyone transliterate this from Malayalam? I'm not very good so I can only get so far but if anyone could add this to the article, it would be great.

• കമ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ് Communist
• പാര്‍ട്ടി Party
• ഓഫ് ????
• ഇന്ത്യ Januhthuya (??)
• (മാര്‍സിസ്റ്റ്) Marxist

CPI(M)'s flag given in wikipedia is not correct. It is only its election symbol.

Please visit cpim's official website and look at the constitution and please click on the link flag it says : "Flag. The flag of the Party shall be a red flag of which the length shall he one-and-a half times its width. At the centre of the flag there shall be a crossed hammer and sickle in white. " But when I changed wikipedia text to correct it, immediately it was replaced with a wrong content. Well, I don't want to compete with those who determined not to open eyes.

Further the constitution says-- ARTICLE XIV ..All-India Party Congress . 1. The supreme organ of the Party for the whole country shall be the All-India Party Congress.

And Also--

2. Functions and powers of the regular Party Congress are as follows:

(a) ...... (b) ..... (c) To determine the Party line on current situation;

And also: ARTICLE XIII-- 2(d) Encouragement of criticism and self-criticism at all levels, from top to bottom, especially criticism from below;

And it is a known fact that one of the state secretariates (state secretariate can not take policy decisions) has asked the conference not to discuss the policy matters as part of party congress. Thus acting against the very constitution of the party. And the present general secretary of the CPIM has appealed the conference to avoid election (This is also against constitution). Thus the last party congress of the CPIM is NULL and VOID.

If anyone wants to study the constitution of the cpim, please visit www.cpim.org it is the most democratic, yet suitable for a radical left party. But the present day leadership do not want to follow this for their own reasons. Why? 1) State level leaders are in the influence of imperialist agenda. They do not want to hear anything against it. 2) General secratary is under tremendous pressure from social democrats including hiw own wife who challenged class politics but surprisingly not expelled when resigned.( see ARTICLE VIII Resignation from Party membership 1. A Party member wishing to resign from the Party shall summit his or her resignation to the Party branch or to the Party unit to which he or she belongs. The unit concerned may accept the same, decide to strike his or her name off the rolls and report the matter to the next higher committee. If the resignation is on political grounds the unit may refuse to accept the resignation and may expel him. Well, I do not support expulsion either.But it should be applicable not only for the liberals. )He is painted as a "hardliner" and he wants to show himself that he is a pragmatic leader. This makes him acceptable for everyone. He wants to please everyone. Those who tries to please every one is not a communist. A communist is a person who follows communist principles. When I include remarks, about how MN Vijayan was silenced for pointing out the deviations, that was removed. Reality is a reality if it is removed from a website or not.

What is going on within the CPIM?

There is a serious ideological debate going on inside the CPIM now. CPIM is one of the few communist parties in the world, which did not moved away from its ideological moorings after the collapse of Soviet Union. But like any other living communist party, there is a serious debate going on within the party. There is a section inside the party leadership and rank and file who does not agree with the class theory. How ever these section, in general, are sympathetic to the growth of the CPIM. They want the present CPIM transformed into a social democratic party to accommodate a more liberal and flexible leftist view. As else where, it is difficult to directly question the class theory of a decades old organization, a few "new leftist" are trying to replace the class content of the CPIM with that of Identity politics. The prominent leaders who are supportive of this move are Brinda Karat, Sitaram Yechuri, S. Ramachandra Pillai, M.A.Baby, P.Govinda Pillai, Thomas Isaac. The leaders like Jyothi Basu, Somanath Chatterjee are more favouring a capitalist welfare state. The leaders who are opposed to replacing class nature of CPIM with that of Identity politics are Prakash Karat, the present day General Secretary and M.K.Pandhe. Strangely, but still natually, the attempt to replace the class theory wiht identity politics faced resistance from those CPIM sympathisers who are not party members.

The compulsions of Parlimentary model of politics have ccreated such complex paradoxes within the party always. As the office bearers of the CPIM is more busy keeping the electoral base of the party intact if not growing, it is the "outside" sympathisers who got the comprehensive view of the current situation. It was M.N.Vijayan and Prof.Sudheesh who pointed out the deviation from the ideological moorings. The Provincial secretary of the CPIM described what M.N.Vijayan saying as "madness". But after sevral months if debate within the CPIM, the party decided to expel many party members who were accused by M.N. Vijayan's camp for deliberately deviating from the CPIM's principles. CPIM leadershop, in a face saving exercise, expelled prominent intellectual M.P. Parameshwaran for propogating the "Fourth World" theory. Interestingly, when M.N. Vijayan's "madness" first created a controversy, the office bearers of CPIM had deployed the same M.P.Parameshwaran to answer the M.N.Vijayan's criticisms. Parameshwaran did his job. But later the pary to save the skin of some "electorally" powerful leaders, expelled the very Parameshwaran whom Party leaders thought best equipped with answers. Interestingly who ever asked Parameshwaran to use the Party Organ to answer ideological questions, are safe. CPIM's central leadership, who has no mass followers has no other way to silently "adjust" with these powerful local lobby. This is the same CPIM where its former Head, Sundarayya was removed from the Central leadership, when his ideological stand was rejected by party.

CPIM in the last party congress, came with a special document titled "some ideological issues" . The party congress could not resolve the ideological issues so it has called for a special conference to discuss these issues, higlighting the importance of these ideological issues. Still the party leaders' confusion was clear when a formal politbureau member disclosing that he had been opposing the views upheld by M.P.Parameshwaran several years and he indicated that M.P. Parameshwaran will be expelled from the CPIM. Thus a prominent intellectual (former nuclear scientist) was expelled from the CPIM for publishing his views at least 5 years ago. But strangely this Polit Bureau member, not to talk about the provincial leaders whose attempts are more deliberate, never even thought that he himself should have been expelled from the CPIM for deploying the same MP Parameshwaran answer M.N.Vijayan, in the party mouth organ. P. Ramachandran never explained why he himself should not be expelled from the party knowingly supporting and encouraging M.P. Parameshwaran propogate his Liberal Socialist ideology. What is pity is neither P. Ramachandran nor the Prakash Karat has the support within the CPIM to expell any liberal leaders, because in a parliamentary system, people who can win votes (identity politics is more suitable for winning votes) always dictate others. Lalu Prasad, Jayalalitha and the like hijacked the political vote bank, and they started controlling their regional groups. The same thing is happening in CPIM now. M.K.Pandhe can not even win a panchayat Election in India so his class theory has become irrelevent. Pinarayi Vijan controls a particular caste vote bank so he need not know what is the ideology. Brinda Karat is clever enough to understand identity politics gives her the necessary star value and not the class politics. Prakash Karat can at the best publish left word books and pass resolution in this context. But when the advocates of identity polics asked him to release book questioning class theory, then he has no other way but to release the book in the public function, though he can not know what is written in the vernacular language publkication.

So, what is your point? This is an encyclopedia (albeit an open one), not a discussion forum. Obviously there are many sides of the story, and the only material included in the actual article will limit itself to what different constituencies can agree upon as a consensus. --Soman 23:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The history records of wiki reveals that it is soman who altered the content about CPIM flag. I have given supporting evidence to prove what I have given. CPIM has only one flag, that is according to its costitution. The new admirers of CPIM stongly believe that cpim is an election to election party. This is not true.

This is a page about CPIM. I have quoted from CPIM's constituion. The constitution and program of CPIM defines what is cpim and not what its leaders and admirers believe. If wiki is an encyclopedia, then it should be edited to remove incorrect facts.

I have quoted from cpim's program. And I have included remarks to prove there is a deviation from these principles. Facts are facts. Encyclopedia is a place where facts are given and not beliefs. Cpim is supposed to be a party working on the theory of class content of the society. Officially it is against any violation from its class politics. Any individual leader of CPIM working against class politics and working on the basis of identity politics is a violation of its officially stated principle. This is a fact, and encylopedia should be able to publish facts along with other stuffs. Identifying with Dalit, Muslim politics in the name of fighting against Fascism is nothing but identity politics. Resigning from the central committee in the name of gender is identity politics. Class politics should take up other issues only within the limit of class politics. Bringing the Environmental politis, gender politics, dalit-muslim politics, developmental politics( in the name of self help groups), literacy progam etc into the center stage to trivialize the class struggle is a deviation from the official statement of cpim. An encyclopedia is expected to tell what is officially the said entity/subject and what is the real position now, and what are the deviation. That is what I have done.

The flag has been removed now. It is correct that the constitution doesn't mention a star in the flag. The flag with is however, commonly used. The way it was described to me was that the star was a mark of distinction between CPI(M) and CPI, CPI(M) banners having a star and CPi without a star. However, I've seen both CPI and CPI(M) using both versions.

As per the deviation-identity politics jada jada, i still don't see your point, as you clearly contradict yourself. Do you believe that there can be one single definition of class politics, acceptable to a majority of users of wikipedia? Do you think the CPI(M) leaders you accuse of deviation would agree on that? There should be mention about debates on the development of the party, for example the recent conflict in Kerala, but in such case it must deal with the arguments made by both sides in a (atleast somewhat) neutral manner. Also, your anti-literacy stance is perhaps the most antimarxist formulation seen in years. How can you say that class politics contradicts the antiliteracy struggle. If so, Lenin wasn't a Marxist by your standards.

As per the encyclopediatic usefullness of consitutions, I suppose you would also adhere to that BJP is a secular party? --Soman 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

@ Woohookitty,

I also think that six images are so much for an article with such a length. However, this does not justify your vandalism. If you may decide which ones are pepresentative of CPI (M), for example a mural in Malayalam, one poster in Urdu, etc., go for it but if you cannot decide, don't ever touch it please. Behemoth

Kindly see the link Class in Marxism to refer the meaning of "class". It is funny to hear that there should be a "single definition- acceptable by all". So is that the criterion? If so, let us not put the information that human being has landed on moon because my neighbour woman has not yet agreed with that.

As every child knows it, Marxism views social forces from the perspective of class politics. It doesn't mean that it does not agree with the importance of Literacy, environment etc. Rather marxism is, expected to, contribute to all these fields. But there is a lot of difference between a person viewing everything from the view point that "all the evils can be eradicated if illiteracy is eradicated". Simply it is not true. Illiteracy is a symptom of a social problem. In India, for example, the poor think that their children should earn money for the family, so they send them to work and not to school. The much talked about "official" anti illiteracy program in India is nothing but to take the 88% literacy rate to 92% literacy and then boasting about the greatness of total literacy. It is not a radical social change, but only a tempest in a tea pot. Marxism is all about bringing in structural changes in a society and not about re-painting your house. Unless and until the social problems are addressed from a point of view that one social class is exploited by another social class, and deliberate, serious attempts are not made to address this fundamental problem, then illiteracy will come back in some other form, even if it is removed. If any one thinks that I have said, class struggle contradicts anti illiteracy work, then God Save him! I am not here to define what is Marxism. Let marxists do that. I am only quoting what marxists say what is marxism is all about. and these are generally approved facts. And I am only pointing out that there are clear, known instances of the so called "marxist" leaders not following class politics. Rather for their own convenient reasons, these handful number of marxists follow identity politics . I have just pointed out this contradiction. I don't say that is right nor wrong.

Stalin's birthday

To Soman: note that my source was officially theoretical and political monthly of the Estonian Communist Party. Parrallel editions were printed in Russian (Политика).--Constanz - Talk 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot happens in 16 years. Your source is from 1990, and I don't doubt that the information there would be incorrect. In the 1970s, Stalin portrait was a mainstay in CPI(M) murals. Today it isn't. I cannot recall any celebrations of Stalin's birthday. There was a celebration of Stalin 50th death anniversary in 2003 in Kolkata, organized by the arch-nemesis of CPI(M), SUCI. See photos at , , , , , ,

CPI(M) is today not really part of the 'anti-revisionist' fold. Differences between CPI(M) and CPI have been settled, although that is never officially admitted. CPI(M) no longer views the Indian National Congress as its main enemy, CPI no longer views the Congress as a main ally.

The comment about Kolkata refers to the fact that if CPI(M) organizes anything in that city, it will not go unnoticed. Virtually every wall will in town will either be painted or postered announcing a meeting or manifestation. --Soman 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Election box metadata

Reading material on 1967 split

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --Soman 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me on indian commies' actions. Thing is, it is an 'editor's footnote from year 1975 that says 'lately some maoists left'.--Constanz - Talk 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be the Centre of Indian Communists in Kerala. That split was however quite marginal. The CPI(M)-CPC break came with 1967. --Soman 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. But it did occur, and exactly for the reason specified in the text.--Constanz - Talk 05:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Truth about the Left

The article displays that the CPI(M)is the third most powerful party in India. However in reality its popularity is based upon one thing-PROPAGANDA.If you will see the CPI(M)'s mostly read paper Ganashakti, you will find all sorts of bogus every so called Proletarian party mentions. If I am proved wrong, try analysing from the Third person perspective.

These assholes are traitors who are working for bad of India. These scum bags sided with the British during the Independence movement. During the 1962 Chinese attack, these scums tried to justify their attack. Now these f$$kers want to roll back the economic reforms happening in India. EMS was called as "China Charan" or Chinese spy. They talk of so called communist principles and they run TV channels, hospitals all about an empire worth about 1000s of crores. And they have no problem collecting in $$$ in US by using Kairali channel. What a bunch of hypocrates.

(whoever has written the above lines can't be trusted, as is evident from his/her language)

History chapter

The history chapter is being rewritten at Communist Party of India (Marxist)/temp. Please lend a hand. --Soman 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading this article would have the impression that the CPM's history stopped in 1971, 36 years ago! We badly need information of some kind outlining what has happened in the CPM during that time! mgekelly 09:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV/Vandalism

User:203.199.60.3 (the so-called self-professed 'Indian National Congress - IT Cell') keeps adding POV material, but with such detachment from reality that it verges to pure vandalism.

• "CPI supported Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and CPI (M) supported Communist Party of China (CPC). These two parties will not take their own decisions. They will seek advices from Soviet Union and China respectively." I'm not sure whether the editor is aware of the Collapse of the Soviet Union. In any case it would be interesting to hear him explain how CPI keeps taking advice from the Soviet Union 15 years after its dissolution! As to CPI(M)-CPC relations, its completly bogus. CPI(M) had some sympathy for Chinese criticism of CPSU in the mid-1960s, but it never had a subordinated relationship to CPC. Relations were completly called of in 1967, and restarted only in the 1980s. But hardly particularily close.
• "CPI (M) even supported China in Indo-China war of 1962". CPI(M) formed in 1964. Go figure.
• "and many of their leaders like AK Gopalan, Susheela Gopalan, EMS Nambudiripad, Jyothi Basu, Nripan Chakravarthy, EK Nayanar, VS Achuthanandan, etc were worked as spies for Chinese government." Good luck giving a credible source for that.
• " The basic principles of CPI and CPI (M) are on Atheism. They are against all religions and they want to impose Atheism in India, similar to China and North Korea." Also completly unfounded. Both parties have reviewed relationship to religious currents, and are not imposing atheism.
• "CPI (M) is absically "anti-Poor, pro-Poverty" organization. The party's main agenda is to 'socialize poverty'. CPI (M) believes in violent struggles, militant revolution, militant Trade Unionism, Bureaucratic Redtape, Licence Raj, etc. The party is against Development, Progress, Higher Education, Reformation, Globalization, Infrastructure Development, Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) and Foreign Indirect Investment (FIIs), etc." Yes, they just want whats bad for everybody!
• "They use to declare bandhs, hartals, strikes, dharnas, gheraos, rasta-roko etc and use to harass common peoples.", whereas Congress/BJP/VHP etc. declare bandhs for the delight of common people.
• "CPI (M) doesn't likes India to be a developed country." Try provide a source for that argument.
• "CPI (M) is one of the most corrupted political party in India." Source please. Then we could look into whether any accusations of corruption ever have been levelled towards the Congress...
• "They used to murder their political rival and it is common in the states like West Bengal, Kerala,and Tripura." In Tripura Congress used to carry pogroms on the tribal population, instigation massacres and burning villages. Not to speak about the semi-fascist terror during Congress rule in West Bengal or about role of Congress functionaries the anti-Sikh massacres of 1984.
• "CPI (M) is also against Computerization, Information Technology, Biotechnology, Modern Science & Technology." Which is an interesting claim. Who defended scientific rationale in the education system when Hindutva groups wanted to introduce astrology, if not CPI(M)?
• and finally my favorite: "Most of the members of CPI (M) are uneducated and illeterates.", in difference to the Congress cadres who are educated leterates.

--Soman 13:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)/temp

Could someone knowledgeable look at Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)/temp and see whether there is anything useful. The creator has not worked on the page since June and nobody has taken over. If there is anything useful, I suggest that it be merged into the article. If it is a better article, then perhaps it should replace this one (I have no knowledge of the topic and have not read either article). If there is nothing to merge, the page should be deleted. I am not going to put this page on my watchlist due to my lack of knowledge on this subject, so any replies to me here will go unanswered. -- Kjkolb 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i once thought communits constituted the most elite and educated politicians in india, but thats not true, they are not good(see bengal in shackels) and now they appose kalam as president , bloody bastards .

== Ashok Mitra and Prabhat Patnaik are still in CPM. Central committee of CPM discussed these issues raised by Patnaik and Mitra (both are prominent Economists in India). Yet no action is taken against them. If at all there is a controversy about CPM, that is about this ideological shift. Without reason, removing edited text altogether is nothing but vandalism.

see WP:SOAP and WP:VANDAL for some guideline. --Soman 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• "... it should also be clear that “capitalist industrialisation” is not some monolith and there are various policies and trends within it too. Neoliberalism is merely one such method of capitalist industrialisation which has become ideologically dominant in the past two decades. It is eminently possible, even under the present circumstances, to steer clear of neoliberal economic policies for industrialisation. If that were not possible then the entire politics of the Left in India,not just the CPI(M), would be put to question and one would willy nilly end up supporting the contention that “There is no alternative”.

Nandigram is a culmination of the West Bengal CPI(M) leadership’s buying the logic of neoliberal economic policies. The symptoms have been visible for some years now. Rather than fighting against the neoliberal paradigm of attracting private investment by offering sops and reigning in the trade unions, the pronouncements made by the leaders of the LF government seems to suggest that they agree with it. ..."

This is written by some one who calls himself/herself "A CPI(M) SUPPORTER".(in EPW-- http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10564.pdf ) Who is this "A CPI(M) SUPPORTER"? Why he/she has to conceal his/her identity? He could be any one from an ordinary member to Prakash Karat the General secratary. And why a CPIM member/GeneralSecretary has to write article against one's own party leadership? (by hiding identity) And if there is a controversy about CPIM that is this ideological infighting. REmoving facts altogether only because one doesnt like the article is nothing but Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.195.45 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

The 'Controversies' chapter keeps on dragging down the quality of the article, and I suggest it be scrapped:

• 'Influence of neoliberalism' is just an individual commentary. The fact that not everyone likes a party is notable as such.
• The nandigram chapter suffers from wikipedia:Recentism. There is a separate article on Nandigram issue, and what needs to be weeded out are which aspects relate to CPI(M) and introduced into the history chapter.
• The CIA chapter is just bananas. First of all, its not a controversy but relates to history. Second the source fails in reliability, the claims made are highly controversial and a source whose claims cannot be checked up by others (as large sections are censored, and no info on how info was collected) should not be used in these cases.

--Soman 14:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• • If you take the entire article, 'Influence of neoliberalism' section is supported with most reliable sources some of them written by Senior CPI(M) leaders pointing out its own negative. There is public criticism by Budhadeb against Prabhat which appeared in national Television. There is absolutely no logic in removing them. In a recent interview between Shekar Gupta and Nirupam Sen, (www.ndtv.com , 8th Dec. 2007), both discuss "criticism about the influence of Neo-liberalism. Nirupam Sen agrees that this is the main criticism of Left intellectuals against Budhadeb's and his policy. Attempt to obliterate the fact may not help improve the quality of article, hence may not be encouraged. While there are approx. 41 references for the entire article, 'Influence of neo-liberalism' section alone has 16 references. The whole article has got approx. 31500 words. The 'Influence of Neo-liberalism' section has got only 1/10 of the total text, i,e, approx. 3200 words. This means just 1/10 of the size of the total text is supported by 1/3 rd of the total references. Obviously no other section is as reliable as 'Influence of Neo-liberalism' section. I strongly argue to remove the rest of the article if necessary, if they can not be supported by more references. But this section should continue, as this is very relevant (as shown by NDTV interview) and important and supported by facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.195.146 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • The problem lies mainly in tone. This is not a CPI(M) debate forum, but an encyclopediatic article. See WP:SOAP. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
      • May edit to modify the tone. But removing facts is not the solution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.60.160 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • CIA section doesnt have any reliability. CIA is an agency which is dedicated to do anti-communist propaganda. The document itself testify it is related to espionage by CIA. There is no corroborative evidence (forget there is no secondary evidence either) to support CIA's claims. And this is leaked in the background of - Ino- USA strategic alliance and Indo-Nuclear agreement. The CIA is an official secret agency of a particular country. Spreading their campaign is not the responsibility of an independent media, but that of its paid agents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.195.146 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Banning 72.179.51.5

This person is consistently removing text and doing political propaganda. Please consider banning this IP Address. Remarks like caste etc is not aimed to enrich the content of wikipedia. This is not a page about CIA propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.28.66 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute between these two editors. You two should work out the issue on this talk page. However, removing referenced info should not be done by either side unless the consensus on this talk page is to do so.--Alabamaboy (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

122.167.28.66 appears to be a WP:SPA.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note this edit. The source added to the caste claim is dated 1961, i.e. three years before the foundation of CPI(M)! --Soman (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added extra references. There is no doubt that the CPM leadership is ethnically skewed in favor of upper caste Brahmins, and numerous sociologists and historians have commented on this bizarre demographic bias. This is the reason why lower caste political parties like the Bahujan Samaj and the (ironically named) Samaajwadi (means socialist he-he) party are hostile to the CPI(M).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps its the other way around, that BSP and SP represent the interests of the ruling class, and thus come into conflict with CPI(M). Class and caste are two structures which interrelate in sometimes paradoxal ways. I'm not opposed to mentioning a section on the support base of CPI(M), with proper references, but including this in the leading is pov-pushing beyond all limits. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, the CPM is Brahmin-dominated, and they are the ruling class. It is true that class and caste interrelate in bizarre ways in India, however,not in the way that the Communist-controlled media portrays it. Including this very important fact in the lead is hardly POV-pushing, given that the Brahmanist-domination of the CPM is a key point in it's criticism, and attests to the fact that Indian socialism is really just a cover for touting Brahmin ethnocentrism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'...attests to the fact that Indian socialism is really just a cover for touting Brahmin ethnocentrism.' see WP:FRINGE. As per the 'references', these are dated 1964, 1967 and 1972 respectively. In real life the image is far more complex. There are many Brahmins in the higher echelons of Indian politics, this spans across left and right, and is testament to inequality in access to higher education, etc., in India. But to say that 'lower caste hindus and muslims have no say' is completly false. What about the Ezhavas of Kerala? And compare politics in WB and Kerala with say UP and Bihar, and the concrete results of progressive land and educational reforms. Where's the caste politics in WB, compared to the Hindi states? --Soman (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SeeWP:NOR. Our job is not to comment on or judge he value of peer-reviewed sources, merely to mention them. Do you have any peer-reviewed sources of your own, or just politburo propaganda?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, read it youself. Your 'peer-reviewed sources' to prove your point all have passed the expiry date with a wide margin. Also, I supposed it was your 'peer-reviewed sources' that simply forced you to fill the article lead with your own pov? --Soman (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Ye of little faithGhanadar galpa (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The opposition in West Bengal is also upper-caste dominated (eg Mamata Bannerjee). The fact is that politics in West Bengal is upper-caste dominated - it is not a feature exclusive to the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian society as a whole is dominated by upper castes. My point of comparison was that WB lacks caste politics in the sense that dominates political life in UP and Bihar. Notably, neither SP, BSP nor RJD has been able to make inroads into WB. --Soman (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WB lacks caste politics? Tell that to the people in morichjhanpi, or , for that matter, to the numerous lower-caste farmers near the Bengal-Bihar boirder on the WB side who have been steadily marginalized by the upper-caste dominated CP(M) Bengal. Perhaps the CPI(M) Kerala maybe doesn't have a lot of caste politics, but the same thing is not the case for the Bengali Brahmins who control the CPM and use their power to tout their crude ethnocentric ideologies.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. Caste votebank politics, UP/Bihar style, does not exist in WB. This doesn't mean that social inequalities don't exist there, but party politics do not have clear caste dividing lines, which is by no means coincidental. --Soman (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see a source other than a partisan CPM-backed "Rabochy-put"-esque rag that attests to this claim.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, its not me who's rewriting the lead at this point. The burden of proof lies on you, in a double sense, both to back up the claim that CPI(M) is a vehicle for brahman supremacy (post 1972, preferably) as well as stressing why this is so crucial that it has to be included in the lead. I have stated before, that I'm not oppose to having a section which would deal with, properly referenced of course, the character of the support base of CPI(M), on caste and community basis. It is true, which I have already stated, that the communist movement leadership was dominated by the bhandralok communists (Somnath Chatterjee is sometimes refered to as the last bhandralok communist), but to say that Brahman supremacy would be significant characteristic of CPI(M), today or in 1964, is completly bogus. To say that Prakash Karat, Surjeet, VS, Dasarath Deb, etc. are 'token leaders' is just detached from reality. --Soman (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that to say that the high Brahmin membership of the CPM is proof of the CPM's Brahmin supremacist agenda is Original Research (although completely true). This is the reason why that claim is not made in the article. The only thing in the lead is that the CPM is heavily Brahmin-dominated, and I can find dozens, if not hundreds, of sources to verify this (virtually any' peer-reviewed article on the history of the poison that is Indsoc ie Indian socialism mentions this). The reader is left to draw the obvious conclusion himself.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the presence of upper castes in the CPM's politbureau and/or the West Bengal government necessarily proof that it is a "vehicle for Brahmin supremacy" or caste-based politics? I don't accept there is a causal link and such a conclusion would be original research and unverifiable. There are many upper-caste communists who have fought against casteism. Take, for an example, Ila and Ramendra Mitra.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Is the presence of upper castes in the CPM's politbureau and/or the West Bengal government necessarily proof that it is a "vehicle for Brahmin supremacy""? No. not necessarily in the legal sense of the term "proof". However, anybody with eyes and ears notes the obvious. The fact that some Brahmins have "fought against Casteism" is hardly the point.Most Brahmins who do so do so for votebank reasons. Like I said below. Brahmin Communists often use arguments and propaganda that appeal to non-Brahmins without actually meaning them. Nonetheless, I agree that such claims, within the context of this article, are original research and I won't support saying these things in the article page. However, the fact that Communism in India is hopelessly Brahmin-skewed, both past and present, is very well-sourced and very important. The inferences that we may draw from that ethnic skewness are not, unless I can find a peer-reviewed analysis attesting to that fact.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is fact, it is just opinion. There may be many people with the opinion that Communists are inherently casteist. There are also many who disagree. Both sides should be represented, with the origin of opinion clearly stated. This is the basis of "Neutral Point of View". My personal opinion is that Indian politics has been dominated by upper castes, but not necessarily always determined by caste interests. I also don't believe that someone who happens to be a Brahmin will always work for Brahmin interests. In my experience, caste is far less a determinant of electoral politics in West Bengal than most other parts of India, so I think it would be wrong and simplistic to claim that Communist freedom-fighters and trade unionists are only interested in the vote bank politics of their own caste.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the article doesn't say any of that now, does it? It merely states a fact noted by many outside observers, that the Communist Party is heavily Brahmin dominated. Let the reader reach his own conclusions. Do you have any sources (not Communist ones please) that say that the Brahmin skewness of Indian socialism is untrue? I'd like to see 'em.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as noted below, the CPM's leadership is not overwhelmingly Brahmin Hindu. There are other castes and religions represented at all levels of the party. So your assertion that the CPM is "heavily Brahmin dominated" is not based entirely on fact. Secondly, all notable opinions should be represented. If there is a source saying that upper castes dominate the party, then a counter-balancing source must be found to show the CPM's official line on caste politics. The CPM has issued a number of resolutions condemning caste oppression . It has condemned Brahmin caste-based political influence at a state level, eg Tamil Nadu

I recommend the following as an NPOV paragraph, to be inserted into the article: "The CPM has been criticised for alleged Brahmin-domination at the top echelons of the party hierarchy, with West Bengal's Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya singled out for criticism. However, some of the parties leading figures come from lower castes as well as the Muslim and Sikh communities. The CPM has also made public declarations against what it sees as Brahmin domination of politics at a state level and has stated that fighting caste oppression is an integral part of socialism."--Conjoiner (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more recent allegations of caste domination in the CPM? The references in this article are from the 1960s and 1970s. Something more recent would be helpful.--Conjoiner (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding it in a separte para. However, a peculiarly blatant example of Original research done by politburo members was demonstrated in the assertion that the presence of non-brahmin members and some poorly written and obvious apologia from a politburo rag is adequate "rebuttal" to peer-reviewed academic journals. None of the apologist refernces you cited to rather desperately whitewash the cpm's casteistcore address the specific allegations of Brahmin domination. What is required are proper, authoritative peer-reviewed sources that address any claims that oppose the ones alleging casteism in CPM. WP:NPOV is hardly an excuse here, since WP:ATT and WP:NOR supercede NPOV.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The CPM's rebuttal is essential to creating an NPOV article. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages rules that states that only "authoritative peer-reviewed sources" (you've cited some sources that date back 30 or 40 years) are required.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On caste an politics in West Bengal, here are some notes from Samaddar Ranabir, Caste and Power in West Bengal, published in Sharma, K. L. (ed.), New Delhi: Rawat Publications, 2001 --Soman (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) ;

The subdivisions like Bangaon, Basirhat and particularily blocks like Bangaon, Gaighata, Habra, Baduria, etc., had witnessesed in the past mighty peasant struggles during the Tebhaga and post-Tebhaga phases – all under the Red Flag leadership of the Kisan Sabha. The dominant groups that joined the struggle were Muslims and the peasant castes like the the Namasudras – a low caste,…

(Samaddar, Ranabir, Caste and Power in West Bengal, p. 53)

The Scheduled Castes in Bengal do not have a separate political identity, nor are there indications that they desire it. Yet, there is caste hierarchy, caste inequality, and the low castes are identified with poverty, exploitation and destitution.

(Samaddar, p. 55)

Thus, the paradox of Bengal can be clearly positioned now: There is an apparent basis for a ‘caste question’ here. Yet there is no ‘caste question’ in a politically significant way. It is not a serious issue, a populist agenda even for power-grabbing politicians.

(Samaddar, p. 57)

Further, as Ashok Mitra argues, caste associations have been noticeably absent in West Bengal.

(Samaddar, p. 58)

The Left Front government policy is to stabilise the sharecroppers and its overall impact has been the stability of the middle peasantry in the countryside. Though it has not checked the impoverishment of the poor peasantry and the swelling of the ranks of agricultural labourers, it has meant a relative absence of a sharp class struggle between the landed gentry and of the rural poor. In Bihar, as we have seen, this implies the struggle of the dalits. … When the Left Front government first came to power, rural struggles flared up in Midnapore and Burdwan for higher wages. But the lid was quickly put on after the term was over. The middle class is again the crucial political factor here. In fact, the whole social reform movement and the ‘Renaissance’ of the nineteenth century, which laid the ground for twentieth century liberalism, had all the imprints of the middle class. Politically, our analysis must go deeper. If the middle class has helped in blunting caste antagonism, the struggles for land and civil rights have been equally important” “These movements too have helped in creating a general democratic awareness and muting the caste factor.

(Samaddar, p. 59-60)

'Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states'

At this point, the chapter 'Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states' starts with 'The CPI(M)'s policies in West Bengal have been criticised' followed by a ref. Is there any governing party in the world that has never been criticized? The fact that one anonymous writer disagrees with party policies is hardly notable. My suggestion is to lift this subsection out of the dismal 'controversies' slushbucket, and have a separate section on 'CPI(M) state governments', which could go through the history and development of CPI(M)-led state governments. This is a very notable feature of the party, and is not discussed enough as the article as it is. Such a section could of course also include critical viewpoints. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• CPI(M) following New-Economic policies is a major policy shift. It is not a "CPI(M) state governments" issue.

• 70 odd Central Committe members from different castes and religions. Last General Secretary Surjeet Sikh, not Hindu Brahmin. Present general secretary not Brahmin. national leaders of freedom struggle of India, were upper caste leaders. Communist party was founded in India by then National leaders of freedom movement, naturally many Brahmins. But unlike Congress and RSS, many early communist leaders from other religions and caste groups. Musaffer Ahmed of Bengal, Muslim, Krishna Pillai non-brahmin Hindu, Surjeet- Sikk are early leaders.Present day Kerala chief minister Other Backward caste Hindu, former Tripura chief minister a Tribal leader. There are only a handful number of Brahmin leaders among new generation CPM leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.4.71 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so the CPI has a few token non-Brahmin leaders. The Brahmin communists are a smart bunch (you forget that the Brahmins have spent generation breeding both hyper-intelligence and hyper-ethnocentrism into their ranks), an structure the party in such a way as to create a showpeice shell of non-Brahmins surrounding a still-very Brahmanized core. Like political movements typical to Bengali Brahmins, they use arguments and propaganda that appeal to non-Brahmins, but preserve a central value system that's still rooted in Brahmanist ethnic activism.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'spent generation breeding hyper-intelligence...'.... Alien invasion, anyone? --Soman (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, Communists do believe in teh discredited "Aryan Invasion Theory" don't they? Alien invasion, indeed :) .Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic

Looking through the rest of the "controversies" section, I can see that it completely fails to reach the standards expected of an encyclopaedia and in parts is badly written propaganda. Nandigram is already covered in a separate article and the section currently looks like an out-dated news story and the rest looks simply confused.--Conjoiner (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To a politburo member, anything other than what the politburo says is anti-Communist/Zionist/Hindu/Sikh/martian propaganda. Most of the facts therein are quite well sourced, and One would thank the politburo members not to convert wikipedia into an edition of Anandabazaar Patrika. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing unencyclopedic. There is nothing unencyclopedic in the controversy section. The facts are completely true that:

• CPM is Brahmin-dominated
• Disputes on CPM's economic policies
• and the other facts mentioned there. These facts should be mentioned. These are completely encyclopedic and relevant information.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover CPI(M) is forged an alliance with hardcore Islamic Terrorists outfits in Kerala - a separete section is needed on this issue.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This point is, of course, quite well known, and is basically the Indian version of the Red-green-brown alliance that is a global problem, with communist revisionists and propagandists being open apologists for militant Islamists and militant Islam. The most recent case of this is the CPM,'s support of Islamic fatwas and death threats passed against human rights activist Taslima Nasreen, as well as them banning her re-entry into west bengal because fanatic Muslims disliked her writings. There was even a program aired on Communist-controlled television in Calcutta that 9/11 was a secret Jewish Conspiracy (an allegation that is a favourite among extremist Muslims). I would love to see more sources attesting to this nefarious alliance and it's penetration into Indian politics. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also other issues, such as the Indian Communists touting pseudoscience in Bengali schools such as Stalinist Eugenics, Lysenkoism and zionology (all of which I have witnessed in Calcutta myself). i will have to do deeper research to get references. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding more reference on CPM-Islamists nexus.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover CPM banned book of Taslima Nasrin in fear of loosing votes from hardcore Muslims. Recently CPM chairman Biman Basu told that Taslima Nasrin should leave West Bengal due to the same motivation. These facts should also be mentioned.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In November 2003, the West Bengal government banned the sale, distribution and collection of Taslima's Dwikhandito, the third part of her autobiography. This fact need to be mentioned.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In September 2007 a movement was initiated in West Bengal by Islamic extremists and communist sympathizers demanding expulsion of Taslima from India. As a consequence, she has been forced to leave Calcutta and seek refuge in New Delhi. She is being used by the West Bengal government as a way of diverting attention from the dispute between the state and Muslim farmers in the rural district of Nandigram. Fourteen people were killed and reports of further violence have continued to shock India. Taslima said: "I'm writing a lot, but not about Islam, It's not my subject now. This is about politics. In the last three months I have been put under severe pressure to leave Bengal by the police. This point is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is evident that the two editors above cannot distinguish opinion from fact and the requirements of an encyclopaedia. This is not a blog, nor a discussion forum for Bengali politics. Feel free to create one elsewhere. But all notable opinions, from both sides, must be given equal weight. And all of what is written above is opinion - yes, notable opinion even, but cannot be regarded as fact by Misplaced Pages since this opinion is disputed. We can get on and concentrate on creating an article people will want to read, or it can deteriorate further into the kind of diatribe you can download from anywhere on the internet.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, I think you need to read up on wikipedia policies as listed on wikipedia, not as listed on a pamphlet launched by the Propagandaministerium of the CPM. Nothing in teh article that is an opinion is presented as fact. The tone has been adjusted to reflect the views. Equal weight, as a matter of principle, if fine. However, we clearly have a conflict between WP:UNDUE and WP:ATT/WP:NOR when the sources cited to try to "refute" allegations of casteism have no connection to the specific claims made by the academics.Given such a conflict, WP:ATT carried precedence. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply giving the CPM's defence from its own party documents is not giving undue weight when this is an article about the CPM! The (very old) sources you give don't actually accuse the CPM of casteism, they note that the CPM was led by upper castes. To bring balance, the CPM's own policies on caste must be referenced in order to ensure NPOV. It seems that you are determined to revert anything that puts forward the CPM's own viewpoint. Consequently, I cannot see this argument progressing. As such, I think we need to seek outside advice, particularly on Misplaced Pages policy, which I think that neither of us is qualified to interpret.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That might not be such a bad idea. perhaps "Third opinion"? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we seek a third opinion in Misplaced Pages?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Misplaced Pages:Third opinion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Temp

I'm restarting a temp page, at User:Soman/CPI(M)-temp, for build-up of material to fill the 1971-2007 void in the history chapter. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Galpa's school of falsification

Still unanswered, amongst the various issues making this article just more and more bizarre, is the question how Harrison could have called the CPI(M) a 'Brahman boys club' three years before the foundation of the party. Did he have a crystal ball? --Soman (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The movement that inspired the CPM existed long before the CPM itself was formed, and it was, indeed, a Brahmin boys club. Simple, isn't it?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So you wrote '(the CPM is)', you actually meant something completely different? For your argument to have at least a grain of sense, what does Harrison actually refer to? Please complete the original sentence here at the talk page. --Soman (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering please. The line is taken from the section of the paper that taks about CPI politics in Madras and how the marxist split was already in the works.The section is in p 292

<quote> In Madras the party has been "tainted" by Brahman leadership, being what Selig Harrison has called "a bunch of Brahman boys." Because the party's leadership has acquired something of a Brahman image, it has not been able to amalgamate the party with one or more of the politically conscious caste associations which have come to play so vital a role in the political life of Madras and many other Indian states</quote>

This is a concise sumary of Harrison, India, p. 180, where he entitles a section of a chapter with the phrase which he took from an interview he had with the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How does CPI politics in Chennai over 40 years ago have anything to do with the present-day CPM, whose main power base is in West Bengal? I feel that you are synthesising an argument, extrapolating points from out-dated sources that do not actually proove your point that the CPM is casteist (ie divides and persecutes according to caste). Harrison is saying, rather, that the CPI leadership in Madras in the early 1960s was elitist, not casteist. A quite different thing, although if his only source of information is Ambedkar, then it is not surprising he was confused. Ambedkar reduced everything to caste and, in my experience, Ambedkarites like to see casteism where none exist (one even told me that Netaji was a Dalit and Gandhi was a Brahmin in an effort to proove that Congress was a source of Brahminical dominance and therefore the cause of Dalit suffering - in fact, Netaji was a Brahmin and Gandhi was a Vaishya!).

As for lawyering, you repeated reference to Misplaced Pages rules that have little relevance to the argument is a good example of what you accuse Soman of doing.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

None of this is germane to the issue at hand. Please invite a third opinion if you must. Furthermore, CPI(M)'s main power base is not just West Bengal, but Kerala, parts of Tamil Nadu, and most of the English language media that they control, either directly or through the use of dummy corporations. Their pernicious power base is vaster than is let on.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

O, the irony. If this had been about the party in Bengal, or at least its nationwide leadership, it could have been marginally relevant. Now 1) Tamil Nadu was not one of the places were CPI organization went over to CPI(M) en bloc, on the contrary it is one of the states were CPI has able to retain some equilibrity with CPI(M), 2) Caste politics in Tamil Nadu are notably different from the rest of India. Tamil Nadu has a party system almost entirely of its own (national parties are not dominant in TN politics), and caste came into competitive party politics at a very early stage with the growth of Dravidian movement. This might be interesting when talking about TN politics of the early 1960s, or on why Kerala and TN developed differently politically, but it says nothing about caste and CPI(M) today, neither in TN or in India as a whole. In fact, TN is one of the states were CPI(M) has been running anti-caste campaigns. I recall a Frontline article of 2003, on a rural party cadre were killed for the campaign for dalit rights. --Soman (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

... in other words there are idiots in India who have their heads as far up their asses as the Communists do. What's your point exactly?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Caste, proposal for moving forwards

My proposal on how to take this debate forward would be to create a separate 'Caste' section or subsection ('CPI(M) and caste', or something similar), which would NOT be a subsection to 'Controversies'. Such a section could deal with the subject from various angles, such as;

• Theoretical analysis of CPI(M) on caste system
• Caste compositions or leadership, parliamentarians, support base, voters
• Anti-caste activities of the party (without insinuatory remarks)
• Policy of the party towards reservations, quotas, mandal commission, etc.

--Soman (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Allegations, misconceptions, nonsense, facts

Consider statement: "Guruji Golwalker, RSS philosopher head had eaten and defecated a lot during his lifetime and his shit contained a lot of germs." Thiis is factually correct, but should be added to biography? Almost all national Indian political parties, except caste or religion based ones, had leaders predominantly from elite families, most of them upper caste and Brahmins. CPI(M) or left parties are the only National parties, had ensured the leadership transformation from Brahmin and uppercaste to the lower rungs of caste hierarchy.

Case of miserable failure to understad terms "Brahminical", "caste", "corporate", "Communism", "leadership", "Tamil Nadu" etc.

" Brahminical" is not equivalent to Brahmin always. Most often, "Brahminical" is used to question the uppercaste dominated social system, where the lower-caste rights are denied. In the context ot Dravidian Movement the word "anti-brahminical" is widely used. Dravida Kazhagam was not simpy opposing Brahmins, it is against untouchability and other caste based oppressions. Dravida Kazhagam was against North Indian (Aryan) groups and culture (Hindi) and not all of them are Brahmins. DeccanHerald the Karnataka News paper was criticised of following Brahminical view till Hari Kumar's time, but it is not run by Brahmins but by OBC caste family.

What is caste? Inherited by birth? Then how Vishwa Hindu Parishad converting some lower caste into Brahmins relevant? If a person follows secular political view and never practise religious and caste rituals and remain an athiest, is he still Brahmin? Landlordism is the economical base of Caste superiority in social life. How can a party be blamed Brahminical, if IT IS THE ONLY PARTY SUCCESSFULLY CAMPAIGNED FOR LAND REFORMS AND IMPLEMENTED IT WHERE EVER IT HAD COME TO POWER?

Corporate: If some Parsis are controlling TATA , that doesnt mean TATA Yellow Page is a Parsi literature. Even TATA group can not be called Parsi Corporate. There is nothing like CPM controlled corporate media.

if Communism can be considered foreign concept, so is Democracy. so is Hinduism. Vedic Hindus were not living in the present day India is well established. Even Guruji Golwalker says Gandhara (Afghanistan) is the Birth Place of Gandhari. There is no philosophy which is purely Indian or western. The language typed here is not Indian. Should that be mentioned after each paragraph, while typing?. The Misplaced Pages is not Indian, should each page of wikipedia contain that. The name India is not Indian. So after giving a title India , should it be mentioned within bracket-- "the foreign name of the country". There should be a limit for talking utter...

Who are the leaders of CPI(M)? Definitely not General Secretary, as General Secretary was over ruled many times. Is Central committee the leadership? But Central committe can work only within the framework of Party congress. Hence are the delegates of Party congress the leaders of CPI(M). Take either central committee, or the delegates of Party congress, both have only a handful number of Brahmins in them. Though, cant verify, I will be surprised if they are more than 10%. CPI(M) leadership is at present dominated by OBC and Non-Brahmin Uppercaste (if birth is the criteria to decide caste)

When was CPI(M) in Tamil Nadu dominated by Brahmins? From where is this ---sense researched? There seems to be no idea which party has dominance in which state. There are elemetary knowledge one can acquire by talking in the local tea shops before speaking on top of the mountain.

The attempts to malign and glorify CPI(M) should not be encouraged. There should be a balanced view. When criticism is made by top CPI(M) leaders themselves, and if they are about the very fundamentals, then they are serious and should have a place here. But rabble rousers' rhetorics even if they are facts, should not be given place here. What is the relevance of CIA statements about communism.CIA is an anti-communist wing. Spreading false propoganda is its activity. If Bush said Iraq had Weapons of Mass destruction, or Iran had Nuclear program, what relvance it has, other they are uttered by Bush? The allegations by CIA should be mentioned in an article with the heading "Allegations and Follies of CIA" and not under CPI(M) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.8.204 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fraud

The latest addition of the anti-cpi(m)-pov-pushers is the accusations of electoral fraud. Such allegations have been directed against all major parties in India. It must be understood that political parties compete with other parties, all parties have enemies, and including every accusation ever directed against a party in the article drags down the encyclopediatic quality. This has already happened to BJP, INC and Shiv Sena articles. I think we should work to improve the quality of these articles, to lift them to FA status, rather than using the wiki articles as notice-boards of our own personal grievances and biases against them. --Soman (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida should not be used as a playground for spreading communist propaganda or CPI(M) party's own propaganda. Electoral fraud is a genuine and imporatant fact, no matter if it is done by other parties or not, the matter is that it is done by CPM. In Iraq War, there are accusations against both parties- US and Saddam. Allegations against Saddam are the allegations of human rights violation. On the other hand allegation are also present against US force. Now if anyone accuse US force of human rights violation on Iraqi prisoners, such as in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, then that will not become anti-US or pro-Saddam. The matter is simply tell the truth, no matter who is doing the bad jobs, simply tell the truth whoever is doing it. Our job will be cultivate truth and mention them, not to conceal truth. Electoral fraud is a completely true and genuine fact- then why this will be whitewashed? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the 'communist propaganda' in the article? Please identify the passages you say is 'propaganda'. As per the accusations of fraud, there is a semantical twist here. There are allegations of fraud in wb elections, as in many other Indian states. Now you say this is 'completly true and genuine fact'. Please source that. --Soman (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Whitewashing the allegations against "subject X" is regarded as propaganda campaign by "subject X".
• Regarding source of fraud, you can see from the sources that these are allegations against CPM of fraud. Now you say 'it is false and non-genuine fact'. On which basis? Please provide source by which it can be proved that CPM don't involve in rigging. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Equally, Misplaced Pages is not a place for portraying opinion as objective fact. What is required in the "controversy" section is allegation followed by refutation, using verifiable and relevant sources. I've no personal interest in defending the CPM. I would like to see a well-written article that can inform readers of the history, organisation and political ideology of this party, including the debates surrounding it. On the issue of electoral fraud, I agree that it is a problem across the political system and is endemic, not specific to the CPM. If allegations of electoral fraud are to be included, then they should be set in the context of the endemic problem of electoral fraud throughout India, including those many states where the CPM has no presence.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This article is needed to be a well-written article with cultivating all the scopes including allegations against the party. And if a party is engaged in electoral fraud, then it is needed to be mentioned. Drug trafficking is global problem, then why wikipedia has article Illegal drug trade in China or Illegal drug trade in Colombia? Is there any objection that if drug trafficking be a global problem, then why these two countries are specifically mentioned with the issue of drug trafficking? Similarly if CPM involve in rigging, then it a fact with CPM and simply need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is apples and oranges. By your own logic, the All India Trinamool Congress article would be pure pro-Trinamool propaganda, since it includes none of the accusations of violence, thuggery, gansterism, murders, etc., that CPI(M) repeatedly accuse the party of. Political parties trade accusations all the time, and in Indian politics these accusations are often very sharp. This is nothing unusual, and if you ask me these accusations say more about the political character of Trinamool Congress than of the CPI(M). --Soman (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies concisely to this argument.Ghanadar galpa (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ~

Learn to read the guidelines before lecturing about them. Othercrap refers to a non-argument in deletion discussions. It does not prohibit to make comparisons between articles on talk pages. The point of the argument is what consequences Otolemur's argument would have if, and I point out the term if, applied to other articles. Read the passage again and respond the question, if you'd like. Or, rebuff it with an acronym or the name of a random soviet publication in Russian. --Soman (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If electoral fraud is done by nearly all parties, it is not become an argument that CPM also can do electoral fraud. It is not an argument that if A-party and B-party doing some bad job, then C-party's bad job is not bad. The matter is simply telling the truth. CPM engage in rigging, it is a fact, and need to mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if this is 'fact' (as opposed to an 'accusation'), give a source. --Soman (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It can stay as accusation, no problem with that. Sources are alredy been provided and also mention it that way. It is not saying that "CPM is engaged in rigging"., instead it says "CPM has been accused of rigging". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That means we're back to square one. Please answer the question; should there been any discrepance in including accusations from rival political parties in the articles? Concretely, which accusations of the CPI(M) should/could be included in the Trinamool article? --Soman (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

India has a multi-party system and political parties are recognised by Election Commission of India. As it is a democracy, as it is a multy-party system, there is NO PROBLEM in including accusation from other parties. Moreover the accusations are published in newpapers, not in the other parties' website. So there is no problem in putting these accusations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So there is no problem for the encyclopediatic quality if all articles on Indian political parties get flooded with listings of rants and accusations? How would the INC article look, if your standards were applied there? --Soman (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are accusations. Controversies are controversies. It need to mentioned to write an article with all angles. Simply it is the matter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is important to cover all sides in an article, I also agree with Soman that every accusation and allegation traded between parties need not be reproduced on Misplaced Pages. If you are familiar with Indian politics, you'll know that rhetoric can often be hysterical and the CPM is no exception to this. Repeating everything here could breach verifiability. If the Electoral Commission or the police have reported electoral fraud by the CPM, then it is an issue. If it is someone like Mamata Bannerjee saying it, then it is not worth publishing, otherwise, as Soman says, the articles for all Indian political parties will be filled with the most absurd allegations.--Conjoiner (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the accusations are published in reliable sources and need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've lived in West Bengal, you'd know that the entire news media has an anti-Left bias, hence the hysterical way in which Buddhadeb is portrayed as General Dyer over the Nandigram police action by the same media that play down Modi's hand in the Gujarat carnage.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to read the actual sourced article in question. Mamta makes a general comment about 'rigging' (without going into any specifics at all), but does not demand a repoll. If there was any real notability or substance to this, the NDA Centre governments (to which Mamta belonged at the time) would have every opportunity of seeking to declare President's Rule in West Bengal. --Soman (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While Trinamool did not call for a repoll, CPM's did call for a repoll in 100 booths that it alleges were taken over by Trinamool activists. What would give more weight to this section is whether the Electoral Commission actually took action following the allegations of vote rigging, or whether this is simply the usual exchange of accusations and counter-accusations that lack any substance.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ikyaranga?

It is said in the article that Ikyaranga has been substituted by Janashakti as the party organ in Karnataka. Since when? http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/18/stories/2007031813680500.htm, from March 2007 mentions Ikyaranga. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gurushant is now editing Janashakti- From May 1st 2007 onwards. Janashakti was the mouthpiece of undivided communist party in Karnataka, Nirajana was associated with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.214.103 (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

I don't think blanking out entire sections is a positive way forward. As this blanking is being carried out by anonymous people/person, is there any way in which we can ensure that only established users can edit the article?--Conjoiner (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've currently semi-protected the page for a week; encourage all users involved to make use of the dispute resolution process, once we get to talking. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my position several times on this talk page, namely that the entire 'controversies' chapter should be removed. It is an ill-written piling of random rants and conspiracy theories, and cannot be improved by copyediting. Those parts of that section, which have some sense can be lifted out and placed in the history section. --Soman (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban users Conjoiner and Ghanadar galpa

Spreading fascist ideology like "Socialism is a foreign concept which is not acceptable to Indian culture is a fascist campaign. To prevent wikipedia from used as a tool to spread fascism, these two users should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have two options here. You can engage constructively and politely and put across your misgivings about the article on this talk page, or you can continue to disrupt the article until it is protected from anonymous users from editing it and your IP address is blocked. I am confident that I and all other established users who have been contributing here, representing all opiions, will not be banned.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Readers please go through the discussion above. None of the logic is acceptable to the above two users. Misplaced Pages is not an anti communist propaganda machine. nor it is a pro-cpm propaganda tool. Why these two users has only motivated anti-communist lies to spread here. I am for a balance approach. I have not attempted to remove all anti communist statements here as some other editors wanted to. But a lie is a lie. If some one say CPI(M) is brahmin dominated party they should have the ability to tell which leaders of 70 plus central committee leaders are brahmins. Socialism is a foreign ideology is a fascist propaganda. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has clearly declared that Socialism, islam and Christianity is not acceptable to India. These fascists are motivated by Hitler and Mussolini is well established. Misplaced Pages can not be allowed to be a fascist propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being idiotic. If you read anything I wrote above, I was challenging the notion that the CPM is Brahmin-dominated. Moreover, I have worked towards a balanced approach, particularly on the allegations that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture - an idea I personally think is absurd, but one that is propagated by the Sangh Parivar and therefore is a notable viewpoint. I do have reservations as to whether the CPM article is the appropriate place for this, or whether it is more suitable for inclusion in a more general article about socialism in India. But don't pursue this ridiculous campaign against me, simply because I have reverted your vandalism - for blanking entire sections without any attempt at debate is vandalism.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is some sort of sick joke, right? American Academic David Frossard is a shill of "evil Hindu idolaters"? Notable western academics are all "Hitler and Mussolini lovers". Sounds like some Indian Communist version of the protocols of the learned elders of zion. Does anybody need to take this crap seriously? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Added Note. IP adress 122.167.6.1 comes from Bangalore, Karnataka, Bangalore. Some organization named APNIC and the domain "ap.nic.in". A couplea swift google searches some very interesting details about this group and whom it's a front for . Clever little buggers, these CPM types and their paid shills, ain't they? WP:COI in spades, anyone? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You do understand that ap.nic.in and apnic.net are not the same right? Also, you do understand that ap.nic.in is essentially the government of Andhra Pradesh's information service, right? You do understand that 1000s of people use the ap.nic.in internet domain, right? --Soman (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Condemn wikipedia being used for fasicst propaganda

The below statement is now part of wikipedia page, which is given a certain legel of protection now by preventing ordinary users from editing it. "Incompatibility with Indian culture

Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society. They are accused of advocating an ideology that is not sensitive to India's ethnic and cultural diversity. Some also accuse them of failing to engender a new form of national identity, which has allegedly led to the failure of Communist parties to establish a national following. David Frossard criticizes the CPI(M) in Kerala for ignoring the inherently Capitalist nature of the agrarian system in the region and trying to impose collectivist and allegedly Stalinist economic policies. He alleged that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India."

It is clearly a fascist statement. It is not relevant who has written this originally. There are thousands of articles and books written by various authors. What is written in wikipedia should be judged by the message it is spreading. The above statement as part of wikipedia article is part of a pro-Hindutva fascist campaign. The very statement that European Socialism is not suitbable to India is a RACIAL COMMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with the anon user here. The notion that Socialism (or other trends of though originating in modern times) would be 'incompatible' to Indians is extremly demeaning to Indians at large. To say that Socialism is 'inapproriate for Indian society' is of course a grossly pov and unencyclopediatic statement, even though that opinion might have been expressed in text somewhere. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Numerous academics and sociologists have commented and written that socialism is completely at odds with traditional Indian values, and the only reason why there even are any "communists" is because Indian communists don't even knoiw what Communism is, and merely join the mob of CPM thugs because of their ethnic or religious compulsions. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to ban Ghanadar galpa and Conjoiner

Either these editors should be banned from wikipedia or I should be given an explanation why I should not take legal action against wikipedia for allowing them to make insulting remarks against me using wikipedia

"Clever little buggers, these CPM types and their paid shills, ain't they? WP:COI in spades, anyone? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

":::You are being idiotic. ...-Conjoiner (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And who ever repeatedly inserted RACIAL comments should be answerable to the law of each country where Misplaced Pages is published. Please give an official wikipedia explanation here.

Now that these fascist propagators are twisting things. Who pushed fascist propaganda is very celar from the history of these pages. Who has done democratic discussion in these pages and who has indulged in vandalism ignoring all discussion is also clear here. I dont want to accept the new versions of twisted explanations spread by these users after I demanding their banning from this forum. It is a convenient thing to come with new explanations after their ban is asked based on their earlier works. Now that this editor himself/herself agree that what is going on here is nothing but a fascist propaganda. Hence these usrs should be banned who ever has contributed to this fascist propaganda.

Er, there are no explicit laws against expressing racist OR fascist beliefs where wikipedia is hosted, namely the United States. You know, land of the free and home of the brave, something a communist propaganda hatemonger and gangster thug would be unable to comprehend, of course. Not that I don't detest racism or fascism, I do (the two are completely different, one can be a racist without being a fascist, and vice versa; wonder why the communist comflated the two, Fascist (epithet) I wonder???).Ghanadar galpa (talk)

Error is regretted- Ban Otolemur crassicaudatus and NOT Conjoiner

My earlier message asking the Ban of Conjoiner is a mistake. I wanted to type the name Conjoiner but erroneously typed the other user's name. The error is regretted. But my demand to ban Ghanadar galpa stands and I also demand the ban of Otolemur crassicaudatus for spreading fascist and racial remarks directly and indirectly using this forum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I spreaded racial remaarks? Fascist remarks? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I think threats of legal action, accusations against individual editors and calls for bans on this page are unhelpful and you will be ignored or blocked. Please sign up for an account and contribute constructively to the discussion here, or the entire discussion will degenerate into name-calling without any progress. If you have a good argument for removing or radically editing existing sections, then please put them forward without resorting to insults. Trust me, in the long-term you will be able to convince more neutral third parties by this approach than by aggressive behaviour, which is usually met with a ban and the protection of articles from editing. As for the substance of your objections, I sympathise with them, just not the way in which you are putting your case.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • my dear friend, What each user is contributing here and pushing here is obvious here. Indirect threats like "will ignore you and ban you" will convince those who doesnt have any other avenue to express himself/herself. I have stated my case very clearly. Where did I resort to name calling? Show me a single instance. I am happy to make civilized comments. I have not attempted to block others in a clandestine way. It is my RESPONSIBILITY NOT JUST A RIGHT to demand the ban of users who are spreading fascist ideology using a forum which work with the contribution of general public. I dont care if I am banned or not. There are many other great people who failed temporarily against fasicst campaign. But my remarks here are clear, unambiguous and emphatic. If I am banned by wikipedia for demanding the ban of those who spread fascism, so be it. I will consider it a great honour in exposing any media which support RACIAL COMMENTS in the name of technicality and BANNING THOSE WHO EXPOSE such fascist campaign. Tell me which civilization can tolerate a comment : "Sociualism is not acceptable to Indian culture". The fact that this text is allowed in the wikipedia for many days even after that was pointed out. And it is still allowed here shamelessly by a forum which goes to people for contribution. I think people are better judges and not myself and yoruself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the allegation is made in a verifiable source, then it should be included in Misplaced Pages, preferably with the opposing argument also included.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Mr...Mr...Mr Anonymous editor. I spreaded fascist propaganda? I spreaded racial remarks? If I were a fascist, I would have never created an article titled Anarchism in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Or I, who edited Human rights in India with a para fairly critical of anti-Gay laws passed in India (most real fascists absolutely hate homosexuals).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also edited the paragrapgh, brought the fact, the violence homosexuals face in India in the Human rights in India page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking to ban editors based on pov-pushing is not constructive. Pov-pushing is not vandalism, and is not ground for getting banned from wikipedia. Also, I find the anon user's tone to be disturbing, but his accusations are not very different from the accusations that have been directed at myself at this talk page in the recent period. --14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This is not a usual "pov-pushing". This is pushing a theory of "cultural purity". The people can judge what is meant by "Incompatible to Indian culture". Imagine if some one say "Protestant Christianity if incompatible to USA" or "Islam is incompatible to Austalia". This is more serious because of the context in which it is pushed. The whole arguments by the above two editors are related to race, community or religious matters. And the word "European" is added as adjective to "socialism". I once again request the ban of all the users who directly or indirectly support these fascsit statements in a forum which functions using people's contributions. I am not asking a private group spreading fascist slogan siting inside their office room. I am asking the ban of fascist propagators in a public forum which is fucntioning using the fund of public. I have every right to go to any public forum against wikipedia if it fails to ban these propogators of fascist ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.16.147 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, numerous peer-reviewed academics like Daniel Pipes have written that Islam is incompatible with western culture. While I do not agree with such views I also agree that they are notable enough to bear adequate representation. The same maxim applies here, even though I do agree with academics that most Indians, once they learn what Communism actually is, find it disgusting, repellent and obscene. This is true for people in India of all faiths, especially Muslims, who view Marx's comments about "religion being the opiate of the masses" as absolute haraam and fundamentally incompatible with and a blatant insult to the Shahadah:"la Ilaaha Ila Ilah, Muhammadan risulu Allah".Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

The entire controversy section (criticsm against economic policy) should not be removed. There is no reason why these sections are removed. Both CPI(M) admirers and Fascist admirers are busy removing text what ever they dont like. the controversial section most of the critical notes are stated by noted CPIM) leaders themselbves. They are widely discussed in the national media. They are not racial comments, supported by references. They were active in this forum for many months and there was only one who wanted to them to be removed that is Soman. Hence, hundreds of readers never felt they were devaluing the entire article is not correct. Only because some fasicst propagators are devaluing this page doesnt give right to remove the entire controversy section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be an outline of the debates surrounding economic policy in the controversy section, since economic liberalisation is a source of controversy, particularly in West Bengal. However, this could be better addressed in an article on Socialism in India, since the debate is not limited to the CPM. It is better to cover the Nandigram Dispute in the article on the subject, rather than go into depth in this article. Likewise with Taslima Nasrin, which isn't an important issue in CPM history. Perhaps there could be a brief section about controversies in West Bengal, linking to a larger article on the Politics of West Bengal.

One of the main problems I have with this article is that it fails to distinguish between CPM as a party, the Left Front in West Bengal and socialism in general. Criticisms of West Bengal state government policy belong in an article on West Bengal politics and likewise with socialism. This article should be concerned only with the history, organisation and ideology of the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It was CPM chairman Biman Bose who called if Taslima's presence creating problem, then she should leave Bengal. It was not Govt. of WB, it was the party chairman. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bose isn't the 'CPM chairman'. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. "Convenor of the West Bengal Left Front committee". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Left Front Chairman. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IP 122.167.6.1 's allegation of spreading fascist propaganda against me

IP 122.167.6.1 is accusing me of spreading fascist propaganda. If I were a fascist, I would have never created an article titled Anarchism in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The editing by Otolemur crassicaudatus

"===Incompatibility with Indian culture= ....advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society"

These remarks are once again added by Otolemur crassicaudatus to this forum. Ths is a blatant fascist statement, who ever said this originally and under what ever cicumstances. That a particular culture or science or ideology is incompatible to a certain other culture is nothing but a naked fascist statement advocating racial purity. When some one is accused of theft, arguing I have given charity else where is not the answer to that accusation. I am not interested to see what this user has said elsewhere. The fact is that he/she is pushing a fascist ideology here, in a forum which is working using people's contribution.

Rashtrihya Swayamsevak Sangh is standing for a cultural purity and has consistantly taken a stand against socialism, Islam and Christianity arguing they are not compatible with Indian culture. This organisation is directly motivated by Italian Fascist and Hitler is well established. The recent incident that the genocide in Gujarath assassination thousands of Muslims is a direct result of this cultural purity theory. It was not even a few weeks before Christians were attacked by fascists in one of the Indian states. The question here is HOW LONG WIKIPEDIA ALLOW THE CAMPAIGN OF FASCIST IDEOLOGY HERE.. And Misplaced Pages is answerable to the people whose contribution it takes, why it is not banning such fascist propagators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.6.1 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Anonymous editor. Also note that if I was biased towards Rashtrihya Swayamsevak Sangh, then I would have never created the article Religious violence in India. That article is really hair-triggering for Hindu extremists. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And also note that I have brought the fact, the violence Christians face by Hindu extrimists in that article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A reminder

The user who made legal threats against another here has been blocked for a day or two. However, I'm going to clarify here as I have done at WP:ANI that this does not mean that (s)he is the only party guilty of going against policy in this dispute. This page is obviously going to be a hotbed for dispute, so I shouldn't need to remind you all to avoid personal attacks and observe utmost civility, even if you're replying to an attack on yourself. The best thing to do is just ignore it. I'm going to suggest that you disengage from eachother for 48 hours or so, and see if that helps to resolve the situation (the block should help with this). Thereafter, the dispute resolution process is a sensible course to follow. Thanks, Martinp23 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incompatilibity chapter

Let's have a look at the 'incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter: Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society.

This is an extremly controversial statement, and cannot just be added like this without further explanation. Which Asian Affairs is this? New York or London?

They are accused of advocating an ideology that is not sensitive to India's ethnic and cultural diversity.

How can it be said that communism isn't sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity? Who led the Samyukta Maharashtra movement? Who struggled for Aikya Kerala? Who has been the most consistent force for linguistic states in India?

it isn't. Because Communists try to create an internationalist force based on ideas and concepts badly imported from ones in East Europe. Most Indians are only concerned with their own local customs, traditions, lifestyles and faiths. Communism plans to subvert and destroy all that.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you don't respond to questions, but answer with platitudes and prejudices. The communists have a policy of defending cultural diversity in India, in opposition to earlier Congress policies of imposing Hindi in non-Hindi speakers. Please source the claim 'communism plans to subvert and destroy all that'. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some also accuse them of failing to engender a new form of national identity, which has allegedly led to the failure of Communist parties to establish a national following.

We could have a chapter on 'CPI(M) and the national question' (not part of a 'controversies' chapter). The party definately has a line in the national question, there have been some differences over time, and a lot could be said about this.

David Frossard criticizes the CPI(M) in Kerala for ignoring the inherently Capitalist nature of the agrarian system in the region and trying to impose collectivist and allegedly Stalinist economic policies. He alleged that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India.

Is this about 'Indian culture'? A chapter on 'CPI(M) and agrarian question', with both critical and positive analysis on CPI(M)'s agrarian policies, would be definately helpfull for the quality of the article.

--Soman (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture is at the heart of Indian culture. No matter what anybody says, we are a country of farmers (proud and hard working farmers I hope and pray to God). Most of India's traditions and cultures and religions revolve around agriculture and the seasons. Obviously, CPM's bogus and failed policies of Stalinist collectivisation of agriculture (evodenced by the negligible role that government farms have in India's agro-output) is a cultural as well as economic issue. What hard-working and God-fearing farmer would support communism once he realizes that the Communists plan to rob his land?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. Give examples of 'stalinist collectivisation'. On the contrary, CPI(M) agricultural policy has been one of land reform for distributing land areas to poorer peasants, this is the legacy of land reform in west bengal & kerala, and the line in campaigns like bhooporatam in andhra pradesh. 'Stalinist collectivisation' would imply the creation of largescale collective farming, absent in cpi(m) policies. Notably, this is were CPI(M) and RSP differ, RSP wants to seek collectivisation of agriculture in India. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Communist party did try to implement Stalinist farming techniques in West Bengal. It's even mentioned in the (Communist) NCERT civics course in India, so Frossard has his facts right. It was a disastrous failure, and their role was negligible, but there was land forcibly acquired by the west bengal CPM from farmers by intimidation from CPM gangsters a couple of decades ago. Article is "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries,by Ram Swarup

Author(s) of Review: G. L. Arnold,The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1955), pp. 384-385". It's a review of Swarup's book written by Arnold, where he writes how Communists have been deliberately introducing Stalinist farming techniques as part of a ploy to bring about an Indian holodomor. Although this was before marxist split occurred, also read Matthew and Balakrishnan, "Cooperative farming in India, it's progress and problems." This book details Communist attempts to Stalinize India even after Marxist split.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lie! Arnold doesn't write a single line neither on the CPI or any other part of the Indian communist movement. He mentions that Swarup argues against stalinist models in agriculture, but in no way directs accusations against CPI. --Soman (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Arnold is the summarizer and reviewer of the book, not the author of the book itself. The book is by Swarup, and he discusses Holodomor in detail wrt Communism (pre marxist) and post-marxist split continuation of same policy is cited in Matthew and Balakrishnan. Don't obfuscate, please.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you give Arnold as the source for the claims on CPI or CPI(M):s policies, then it would be resonable to demand that any of the things you write would have a base in Arnold's text. Arnold's review give no base for the arguments you make, are you simply assuming the contents of Swarup's book? Arnold doesn't mention either Holodomor nor the CPI. It should be remembered that at the time of writing, the Congress government developed good relations with Soviet Union and had begun moves towards planned economy. Swarup's appeal might just as well have been directed towards Congress government. In any case Arnold doesn't work as a source in either case. As per Matthew, Balakrishnan, it was written in 1966, i.e. before victory of UF govt. in West Bengal, and well before victory of LF in 1977, i.e. well ahead of making any statements on CPI(M) agricultural policies in Bengal. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Swarup is the source. Arnold is the reviewer. I put it in because Communists will insist that Swarup is a "Filthy Hindoo Indian idolaer" or something and will try to remove him pn the basis of that argument. The review shows that the book in question is not some random publication but has been subjected to western peer-review. What is this nonsense about Congress? We're not talking about those lunatics, we're talking about CPM lunatics. CPM already started to mobilize and lobby for collectivist agriculture immediately after they crawled out of the mud. Mathew and Balakrishnan documents their designs to implement such a horror onto India.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's you and noone else that demeans Indian writers. Have I not used Indian authors as references? Surely you do understand that one could not have talked about any people of CPM in 1955. As per Matthews, Balakrishnan, please provide some examples of their points. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I demean Indian communist writers (propagandists and apologists), and rightly so. I have called communist thugs communist thugs. That's all. I need to goto sleep now and am not your proletariat slave jumping through hoops at the beck and call of some communist murderer. I will return and elaborate.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and believe it would be easy to include refutations of the argument that "socialism is incompatible with Indian culture" in the article, although I think it would be better to include it in an article on Socialism in India, since the claim is about socialism in general and not the CPM in particular. There is a need for this article in Misplaced Pages anyway, in order to show the history and diversity of socialist and communist movements in India.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the claim is specific to CPM. Frossard et al exclusively discuss the CPM and their ethnic politics (for which perceived "Communism" is but a facade). I am not adverse to try to, er, "refute" such obviously true claims. Of course, such refutataions will be blatant Communist revisionism and propaganda, and I will scrupulously monitor for such systemic biases.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an article on Socialism in India is needed, there are many details that doesn't really fit into any of the existing articles on political parties. As per the statement itself, today communism is far more present in South Asian politics than in European politics, which clarifies the flaw of the argument. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Constitution states that India is a socialist state, so certainly socialism has a strong tradition in India both in the freedom struggle and today in Left-run states and in insurgent groups. The socialist tradition goes well beyond the CPM. The trouble is that I don't know where to start with this article.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We could start a temp page (User:Soman/temp-Socialism in India) and when it is mature, move it to the mainspace. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already started the Socialism in India article, which will hopefully evolve into a good article.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I made an error and entitled the article Socialism in india, forgetting to capitalise the I in India. How do I correct this mistake?--Conjoiner (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the pernicious influence of the communist virus as a buzzword isn't widespread in Indian society and politics. That is a regrettable fact. What the academics do assert is that such a widespread influence is largely fake, and only uses words like "socialism" and "communism" to describe them. In reality, it is not socialism and communism at all but a mish-mash of caste, religion, and ethnic votebank politics, with only a core of Brahmin leaders even aware of what Communism and Socialism really mean. The entire socialist ideological infrastructure of India is a colossal fraud and sham, just like it was in Stalinist Russia (nominally socialist, really a rightwing dictatorship) or maoist China (nominally socialist, really fascist)Ghanadar galpa (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"that the pernicious influence of the communist virus isn't widespread in Indian society and politics. That is a regrettable fact.", well you don't hide your own pov very well, one can say. It also explains why you are so keen on constructing OR chapters based on a mish-mash of disparate quotations, as done in this case. For a change, please feel free to answer the question I listed above earlier today.--Soman (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"well you don't hide your own pov very well, one can say", well neither do you, apparently, comrade. I must admit, Communism is a lucrative business if they can spend their money doing to people in Nandigram what their compatriots in East Europe did to the Kulaks and still have cash left over to pay wikipedian propagandists and apologists for their filth.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the majority of citizens in any democratic country are well educated in any political theory? Anyway, who cares about our opinions? The objective here is to write a well-balanced article, not to discuss ideology. I suggest we limit discussion to achieving this objective, rather than engage in an emotive debate that is only likely to inflame editorial conflicts.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Our opinions are irrelevant. That includes Soman's little OR rant above, which does not address specific charges made by notable (western academics, not "filthy Indian Kaffirs" as the ip propagandist implies) critics but tries to apologise for them. Tsk Tsk.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to take on board what an admin stated here, think about it and act on it.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I'd like to bring to notice that user otolemur has removed one of my comments, see , which is far from good wiki manners. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I did not removed your comment, my also. I withdrew statement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am now supporting the addition of compatibility section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit confused on the Compatibility section earlier. But I am now completely supporting addition of this section. I am now withdrawing previous statement which is why I removed the comments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Controversy section

The ideal structure of the controversy section will be:

• Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states
• Mass killing in Nandigram
• Red terror in Nandigram
• Forced expulsion of Taslima Nasrin
• Electoral fraud
• Allegations of casteism
• CIA documents and CPI(M)
• Incompatibility with Indian culture
• Support for Islamic extrimism (it is needed because there are accusation of alliance between CPM and Islamic extrimists)
• Depicting 9/11 as Jewish conspiracy (a CPM dominated TV chanell is associated with it)
• Wall writing and environment degradation Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More reference need to be introduced for the last two sections. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

general anti-Jewish racism from CPM broadcasted on television is sourced here, article by Professor Nathan Katz (specific only to CPM). This is an anti-Brahmin faction of the Communist party, as opposed to the usual brahmin-dominated factions:

Ghanadar galpa (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This fails WP:RS big time. Some guy has allegedly watch a tv show (when? which channel?), in which a for us anonymous person has said something. We also do not get any detail of the party identity more than the 'Communist party'. (CPI(M)? CPI? CPI(ML)?) --Soman (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the controversy section, another subsection is needed titled "Wall writing and environmental degradation" (the title may be changed) because CPM has been accused by many people of excessive wall writng. Moreover there was some government restriction on wall writing, but despite restrictions, CPM was accused of excessive wall writing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a reference on the wall writing issue . Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This just getting more and more bizarre. You seriously have as your intention to include a passage on every criticism every raised against CPI(M)? --Soman (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Every notable criticism? Why not? They do it for everybody else. Hurts to get a taste of their own medicine. doesn't it?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was apparently capable of writing an article on Trinamool, without engaging in piling rants (). Not to brag, but there seems to be two disparate attitudes on how to relate to the Misplaced Pages project here. --Soman (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M) has also been accused of spreading communalism. A reference is given . Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall the 2004 elections, and how TC was uncomfortable due to the propoganda of CPI(M) on Gujarat. As per accusations, this can be piled on the 1000s of other complaints Trinamool have against CPI(M). As per the actual contents, this was not a communal propaganda but warning to voters not to vote for the NDA (which had overseen the Gujarat carnage). These mural were not accompied by any attacks against any community. --Soman (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that this is the ultimate reference on the communalism isuue. More reference need to be mentioned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My response to Otolemur crassicaudatus's suggested structure of the criticism section:

:*Criticism of economic policy in CPI(M) ruled states

I think this is the main source of controversy, among critics both inside and outside the Indian left.

:*Mass killing in Nandigram

• Red terror in Nandigram

These two seem to be the same issue and are already covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, so only a short mention is needed here. The titles you are suggesting are also POV-pushing.

:*Forced expulsion of Taslima Nasrin

The treatment of Taslima Nasrin should be covered in the article on her; the West Bengal government's actions are little different from other states.

:*Electoral fraud

Again, perhaps an issue to be covered in the Politics of West Bengal and Politics of Kerala articles, since allegations of electoral fraud affect all parties.

:*Allegations of casteism

OK, if it references recent and verifiable sources and there is a rebuttal.

:*CIA documents and CPI(M)

Is this really a controversy about the CPM or the CIA?

:*Incompatibility with Indian culture

This section deals with socialism in general and should perhaps be included in the Socialism in India article.

:*Support for Islamic extrimism (it is needed because there are accusation of alliance between CPM and Islamic extrimists)

If there are verifiable sources and a rebuttal.

:*Depicting 9/11 as Jewish conspiracy (a CPM dominated TV chanell is associated with it)

I've never seen this in any CPM publication and have never heard of any CPM leader making this allegation. I seriously doubt that this has any place in Misplaced Pages.

Prakash Karat said so in an NDTV interview once. He is well known to be an anti-Semite and has a deep seated hatred for Israel. I have to look for it though.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you need to find a source for it. I hope you are not attempting to portray criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, or this editorial dispute may never be resolved.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Wall writing and environment degradation

Again, this is best covered in Politics of West Bengal since all political parties in the state are involved in this activity.

So, I am personally in favour of keeping the economic policy and casteism controversies, provided they are NPOV and meet verifiability criteria. The other criticisms are not about the CPM in particular and/or are better covered by existing articles.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanzone

Who is Megan Fanzone? A google search gives no result except wikipedia. How is this a WP:RS? --Soman (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. A tenured professor at Emory University is not a reliable source simply because googlebombers don't like her? Come on! Surely the CPM pays you better than that, comrade.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS requires that sources be published in reputable publications. This applies to all, notable or non-notable persons alike. Most of all, what does the reference refer to? an academic paper? a lecture? a personal opinion? --Soman (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the postcolonial studies group, which hosts material based on internal peer-review among colleagues. It's not some personal blog or anything.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where can this text be found? --Soman (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have searched the Emory University website and cannot find any reference to this person. Are you sure it is not some undergraduate thesis?--Conjoiner (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard copy from library. They have bound volumes. Here is an excerpt:

Split of the CPI and Formation of the CPI(M)

Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. Two issues remain though; 1) The is still a problem of WP:RS, if this is a document with no clear title, that cannot be searched by other wikipedians, 2) i do not dispute the contents of the quote, on the contrary its a largely correct analysis. However, it doesn't give any, any backing for the claim 'Communists in India, in particular, the CPI(M), have been criticized for advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society.', for which you've used Fanzone as a reference. --Soman (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The section is titled Split of the CPI and Formation of the CPI(M). the title of the article is "Communism in India". There is a blurb about Arundhati Roys the God of small things in the beginning and Salman Rushdies "The Moors last sigh". Cited as sources for postcolonial stuff going on in India. Followed by a lengthy discussion on CPM. The title itself is about the CPM. The title of a section describes the subject of the section. Ergo, this is about the CPI(M), the subject of this wikipedia article itself.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't dispute that this text deals with CPI(M), I dispute how it can be used to back up the sentence advocating various forms of European socialism that are inappropriate for Indian society. --Soman (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An adequate summary of both paragraphs from Fanzone, as well as Frossard I should think. You wanna be more specific?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanzone's text says nothing about Indian culture. It relates to the problems faced by CPI(M) in mobilizing a proletarian revolution, in a country were industrial working class is in clear minority. A task not completly unlike the one faced by Bolshevik Party in pre-revolutionary Russia. This is not a criticism of the CPI(M) as such, but rather a description of reality. In fact, it is not very different from the analysis CPI(M) themselves would make. The response of CPI(M) here is the People's Democratic Revolution, i.e. CPI(M) does not struggle for socialist revolution in India but to develop a capitalist society. It does not propagate immediate collectivization of land, on the contrary it works for land reforms for distribution of lands to small and medium peasants. The PDR concept was developed in contradiction to NDR (of CPI), New Democratic Revolution (of maoists) and socialist revolution (as envisioned by SUCI and RSP in India). These are all notable details, but do not belong in a 'controversies' nor 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter. --Soman (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice peice of orwellian Duckspeaking, Doubleplusgood. But the criticism made by Fanzone (criticism in the biblical sense of the word, as it is meant to be on wikipedia) clealy pertains to numerous Indian cultural motifs, such as caste and tradition-based economic practices, and describes the incompatibilities that Communists face when confronting them.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one with the wild interpretations is you. ‘Caste’ is mentioned once, but read the actual passage ‘The main problem for the communist movement was that no one encouraged the joining of the peasant castes, the landowners, and the middle class proletariat into one large revolutionary group. No real national spirit existed amongst them. The main concern of the communist movement was of a socio-economic nature for each individual group of people--not for the good of the working man in general.’ – this clearly refers to the ‘peasant castes’ as one of several socio-economic classes, not necessarily caste in the cultural sense. Where are the “tradition-based economic practices”? --Soman (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A similiar question goes for David Frossard. http://magma.mines.edu/fs_home/dfrossar/Kerala.html cannot be access, and cannot be found in archive.org. Has this been published anywhere? --Soman (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it was up when I accessed it. It was an article referenced by Fanzone herself. That's how I found it. Again, this is not a blog, but an article written by an academic that is clearly institutionally endorsed (otherwise there's be disclaimers and such). That is an effective peer-review. The peers of his department. In fact, Frossard generally praises Kerala society for it's egalitarianism, and how Communism tried to capitalize (erm, no pun intended) on that and failed rather miserably.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Still a text that simply cannot be access by anyone cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that there is no way for anyone, neither you, I or anyone else, to go through the actual contents of it. --Soman (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's down now. It won;t be down forever. Wait and discuss later.Here is Fanzone's summary of Frossard's work in the interim

Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't back up the claim on the capitalist nature of agriculture. Good wikimanners would be to withdraw the passage until it can be properly referenced. Also what kind of work is Frossard 1996-1997. A term paper? a PG thesis? --Soman (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Frossard explicitly says "capitalism". Professor David Frossard would not write term papers. Neither would term papers and Thesis be extensively referenced in peer-review.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but where is the source for 'capitalist nature of agriculture'? As you now have quite a record of giving faulty references on this page, I wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt. --Soman (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian agriculture is traditionally feudal, not capitalist. Socialism and capitalism challenge these feudal structures. Can progress be said to be un-Indian? Is what is regarded as "Indian culture", untainted by "European" modernity, merely a nostalgia for a class/caste hierarchy? I think this is what is happening here.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found the article Ghanadar galpa refers to here here. Her name is Megan Franzone (not Fanzone) and the only reference I can find to her is this article. I am not convinced it reaches the notability criteria. Yet, I also think that the points she raises in her are interesting, although they don't appear to back the notion that socialism is "un-Indian". She states that the lack of caste stigma stemmed from both the presence of non-Hindu religions in Kerala, along with the presence of the CPI/CPI(M), but the more rigid caste hierarchy and identification elsewhere in India made it difficult for Communists to unite people along class lines. At no point does her article support the claim that CPI(M) is "incompatible" with Indian culture. As such, I think she is misquoted and I am removing the reference to her article. This also calls into question the rest of the section, particularly the ideas that are being associated with Frossard.--Conjoiner (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is un-Indian by definition because it did not originate in India. It originated in Russia. If you object to the language "incompatible with Indian culture" then fine. I reworded it to gel better with the references. The present title should be an acceptable compromise. yet you and your comrade continue to drive-by revert. Why is that I wonder. Could it be the Bengali imperative of "ganging up" on their enemies and browbeating them until they give up? Won;t work with me, since I am a Bengali as well, and know the tricks of the trade.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point stands: neither Franzone nor Frossard argue that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture. You have misunderstood what they have said, or you are creating your own piece of original research. I also object to your new title as it is POV-pushing. Try again.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On Frossard, Indian culture and moving forward

In the 'incompatibility' (a word I never learn to spell correctly) chapter, the is a finishing sentence 'Frossard also alleges that the CPI(M) has failed to unite Hindu castes in most of India'. If dispute the existance of an 'incompatitibility' chapter, but there is a grain here that could be lifted out and developed into another subsection. If you go through the membership figures by % of population, one meets some stark contrasts. Generally in India, political parties are generally either national (INC, BJP) or regional/regionally based. CPI(M) and CPI are case of their own, they have nationwide presence, but extreme differences in level of influence. Notably the communist movement is extremly weak in the Hindi belt. 'Why so?' could be a good starting point for a chapter discussion differences in regional strength of the party. There ought to be academic material on this. This can of course not be part of an 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' chapter, unless one would make a point that Bengalis would be less Indian than people of the Hindi belt. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "Indian". Most ethnic Bengalis are not Indian but Bangladeshi. It can also be argued that Bengali intellectuals are essentially just cheap Xerox copies of early 20th century (Communism-leaning) British labor Party members as far as their political views are concerned, so their POV is not shared by non-Bengali Indians.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

well, so much for trying to engage in construtive debates. --12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. You are wrong because most of the population in West Bengal is indigenous (there are Bangladeshis, but also lots of Mawaris, Nepalis, Biharis, Assamese, Punjabis, etc). Have you ever been to North Bengal? Most are Hindi and Nepali speakers. You are also wrong because Bangladesh had been East Bengal until partition and therefore as Indian as any Hindi-speaker, in terms of their cultural heritage.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh would behead you for saying that... Most Bangladeshis are militantly Indophobic, and would vehemently disagree that they have any similarity with "Dirty Indian kaffirs". As for Marwaris and Niharis in WB, most of the regard the CPM as pure satanic evil. I have spent considerable time in Calcutta and Vishwa Bharati. There isn;t a Marwari in Bengal who doesn;t spit on the ground whenever the name CPM is mentioned. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jamaat do not represent the whole of Bangladesh and, anyway, they fought on Pakistan's side in the war of independence. I've lived in Kolkata for quite some time and your representation of Bengali politics is quite different from my experience. But we can trade anecdotes all day long and you can get more and more upset about the CPM. But shall we get to the task of compiling an article that meets Misplaced Pages standards, perhaps with a view to getting "featured article" status? I've no wish to censor the controversies and criticism section, but it should, at the very least, reference verifiable and relevant sources, be balanced and be relevant to the article, which is about the CPM not socialism in general or how policemen deal with crime in West Bengal.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Policemen are in the pay of the CPM. Most police in India are crap, and work as paid agents of local thugrats like Communists in Bengal and the thugrats from the other side of the Gaussian, such as the Ranvir Sena in Bihar or the thugrat Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. samte thing, different ideological motivations.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we've been enlightened by Ghanadar galpa's opinion, could we please move forward? Soman raises an interesting issue: why does a national party have only regional concentrations in support? Are there any reliable and informed articles on this?--Conjoiner (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed mention of Frossard. Although Ghanadar galpa claims his article was available on the internet, his subwebsite at the Colorado School of Mines has not been operational since 1999, acording to archive.org, so it is highly unlikely it is available. Frossard was cited in the Franzone article, but it appears that nothing Frossard or Fanzone said supports in any way the contentious and possibly original argument that socialism is incompatible with Indian culture. If this is a notable opinion, then I am sure Ghanadar galpa will find it easy to give another verifiable and notable source supporting this argument. I have also removed the claim, made in 1955, that Communist land reform programmes are Stalinist; the claims were made two years before the programme was carried out in Kerala and several years before land reform in West Bengal. With hindsight, we can safely say that there was no Stalinist pogrom in either state.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is stalinism simply a synonym for state violence? That incident, no matter how tragic, cannot be classified as 'stalinist collectivisation' of agriculture. --Soman (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is considered somewhat bad form to reference a Misplaced Pages article to back up your claims, particularly one without any references. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest this particular event is "anti-Indian", "anti-national" or, in fact, is related to the collevisation of agriculture. It is also farcical to portray the CPI(M)-led land reform programme as collectivisation. Quite the opposite, in fact.--Conjoiner (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

..so the Communists are not really "Communists" then? Collectivisation is at the heart of Bolshevist/socialist ideology.Kinda backs up the assertion that Indian Communists are fake Communists, doesn't it? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to debate with you. The fact is that collectivisation of farming was never a CPM policy. So your new title for this section makes little sense. The "criticism" you refer to in reference to Communism in India was written before Communists in either Kerala or West Bengal carried out the land reform and either before or immediately after the CPM was founded. They are not specific criticisms of the CPM.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Collectivisation not a CPM policy? Cited sources disagree. It definitely was cpm policy. When it failed and met with widespread criticism, they backpedalled and rewrote their history to remove any mention of this. Of course, peer-reviewed sources are seldom controlled by these gangsters so the truth remains.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Red terror

The red terror section is needed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A fresh round of violence came up in Nandigram in November 2007. The media called Nandigram was captured by the CPI(M). Evidence pointed that the operation was conducted entirely by the party keeping the state administration inactive. The party eulogized the operation with its state chairman describing it as "a new dawn" and the chief minister as `paying them back in their own coin'. The situation was described as one of "Red Terror". A 62-year-old retired schoolteacher who assaulted by CPM supporters told:

“ A group of people stormed into my house at 8 am and asked for my son. They started beating me up, saying 'why haven't I taken part in our rallies', and threatened to burn my house. ”

A villager who was dragged to a CPM office and beaten by CPM cadres told:

“ Where have you hidden guns and pistols, they kept asking me. They beat me mercilessly. ”

Nationwide protests have resulted from the new offensive. On November 12, 2007, the National Human Rights Commission of India has issued a notice to the West Bengal Government directing it to submit a factual report on the conditions prevailing in Nandigram. The Parliament of India decided to discuss Nandigram with urgency, suspending the regular question hour sessions, on 21st November 2007 after two days of complete suspension of the proceedings owing to the heated debates between CPI(M) and opposition party members in both the houses. CPI(M) was alienated in the issue by all the other ruling UPA allies considering the fierce nation wide sentiments against the massacre

What is the problem with it? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• This section, it is a new violence on Nandigram other than the March incidents.
• This violence is very much related to CPM, rather than WB gov. Because the violence was carried out by CPM cadres.
• This new incident caused huge upheaval in national level. Many intellectuals vehemently protested CPM party for that.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is news-led and already covered in Nandigram violence. I removed this section and instead wrote a paragraph on it in the economic policy controversies. This is an encyclopaedic project, not a news website. Nor can we have three or four articles on the same subject. A brief mention and a "see also ..." is all that is needed. If you want to add more details on Nandigram, take it to Nandigram violence--Conjoiner (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are also reverting my edits to other sections, so it appears that you are blindly reverting me rather than considering my edits seriously.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia collects facts. True facts. The root of dispute on CPM's economic policy and Nandigram violence may be similar, but the fact is that the subjects are different. The rootcause of the Nandigram violence may be economic, but we should look at the incident. The fact is that the November violence is carried out by CPM cadres, the cadre attack is quite different from which economists explain on CPM's economic policy. Whole Nandigram was captured by CPM cadres. How CPM is involved in it ..... this paragraph explin that. It is a controversy, a controversy directly associated with CPM. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps rather than making it specifically a Nandigram issue, perhaps a section on the nature of CPM activism and controversies arising from it, including reference to Nandigram. What villager said what is what newspaper is irrelevant. The nub of the issue is whether the CPM cadres operate in collusion with the police, acting as a de facto police force, etc. The actual chronology of events and their details are not so relevant. Is this acceptable?--Conjoiner (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents, would be to include Nandigram in the history chapter of the party. Please feel free to contribute at User:Soman/CPI(M)-temp. There should definately be a Nandigram section in the history, this is the single most notable event in the development of CPI(M) in last few year. Both it must be weighted towards the rest of the 40+ years of party history (WP:UNDUE), void of recentism (WP:RECENTISM) and take both CPI(M)- and Trinamool versions into account. --Soman (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points about recentism and undue weight. But am unsure whether it would be best in controversies or the history section. It is certainly controversial, in the context of CPM's activism, but I don't think it has the same historical importance as some of the major historical events listed here. If the Nandigram issue is put into the national context, it was more of a media event. More Adivasis have been killed in Orissa as a result of police violence to clear the way for large industrial projects and unlike the alleged Nandigram proposal (there is doubt the state government had definite plans) these have succeeded in being built. No mention in Misplaced Pages though. The Left Front government also had a far more formidable challenge in the form of the Gorkhaland Movement, which is not even mentioned here. I do think that, if one were to look at Nandigram in a national and historical context, it is a localised short-term issue and does not deserve more than a couple of sentences in the controversy section. Otherwise, every land dispute can be exagerrated here and the entire article becomes a pointless exercise.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

first as a tragedy, then as a farce...

G. Galpa has now, in some sort of retreat after his/her flawed use of sources was exposed, renamed the 'Incompatility with Indian culture' chapter to 'Collectivization and anti-National ideology' with the motivation: 'renaming to conform more precisely with references' Of course, he still have to find a reference for the collectivization campaign, plus the fact that none of the sources give any indications of accusations that CPI(M) would have an 'anti-National ideology'. This is becoming more and more of a farce, with Galpa trying to attribute his own pov to random western academics. --Soman (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Moreover, the fact that CPI(M) has failed to establish a strong following in say UP, cannot by any means be classified as a 'controversy'. --Soman (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Swarup expressly uses the term "'Stalinist Collectivisation" to denote Communist plans in their consituencies, including their plans to use paid gangsters to muscle out farmers and steal their land for collectivist farming."Random western acadmics"? As opposed to "random Indian Communist shills" (that too Bengalis, not even true Indians really) cited liberally in the article now?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't cited Swarup, right? You cited Arnold's review, which gives no backing for such claims. As per the sources i've used, do you have any actual complaint on the content or are just trolling? --Soman (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my above post. I cite BOTH Swarup and review. The review is cited to back up the relability of Swarup.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The way your ref is written, it reads like you only quote Arnold. As per reliablility, no, reviews do not necessarily mean that something is more reliable. If you want to use Swarup's argument, then use those, preferably with page numbers. Interestingly, you haven't put a wikilink to Ram Swarup, which would have presented the fact that he was running the anti-communist thinktank DRS. Also, see --Soman (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please! I checked quite thoroughly. This Ram Swarup is not that Ram Swarup. Ram Swarup is a fairly common name, although I have nothing at all against anti-Communist think tanks. they're the best kind of think tanks there are really ;). Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the wikiarticle and bharatvani.org, he is the same. --Soman (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No no. The guy cited here is not the pro-neopagan guy. In any case, a peer-reviewed text (as I have demonstrated) stands independent of who the author is. Is this another Communist obfuscation campaign?Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a campaign, you make a highly controversial claim, based on a source for which no other info than name of author and name of the publication. It is moreover a publication that is not online (not that there's anything wrong with that) and is not so easy perhaps for many editors to access in hardcopy. A google-search on clearly gives the impression that he is one and same as the person mentioned in wikipedia article and bharatvani.org. If you have any other info, please share them with us. Since at least I cannot access the book myself at this point, I have to try to make an opinion about what type of work this is, for example is a academic work or is it a political pamphlet? This is not a unusual in any way, it is very normal to enquire about sources. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read what you are quoting? The Arnold article is a review of Ram Swarup's book "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries". This website states that the neopagan supporter Ram Swarup wrote the book "Communism and Peasantry: Implications of Collectivist Agriculture for Asian Countries". Unless there are two Ram Swarups who are both anti-communist and have both published books with an identical title, there is only one Ram Swarup. Soman has merely asked you to quote from the original text, rather than a book review.--Conjoiner (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

is the answer here? The it would seem that the Ram Swarup mentioned in this article is the one and same as the one mentioned in Ram Swarup and bharatvani.org. --Soman (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the book quoted here 'Ram Swarup had written his book, Communism And Peasantry Implications of Collectivist Agriculture For Asia, in 1950 to serve as the plank of a peasants' conference to be called for launching a peasant movement of our conception. But paucity of resources and other opportunities prevented us from going much farther than the publication of this "path breaking study" as the socialist leader and thinker, Ashoka Mehta, described it in 1954. The book received very good reviews.' (from voiceofdharma.org). Other works by same author: Let Us Fight The Communist Menace, Russian Imperialism: How to Stop It, --Soman (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also positively reviewed in the British journal of sociology by Arnold. other works by CPM leaders ->" the Brahmin is as parasitic as the Jew". Other works by cpm leader Prakash karat ->"Jews caused 9/11". What's your point exactlyGhanadar galpa (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you are being confrontational and antagonistic and this editorial issue is unlikely to be resolved through a discussion here. As such, I think we need to seek other remedies.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Confrontational? It's hardly "confrontational" to expose a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia and then complain when detractors show up to balance out the article. most of this pathetic article is lifted off of some Communist propaganda site, "references" include hard left mouthpeices like cpm.org and Frontline. Communists are so frightened of criticism that I wonder how long they will survive. Yes. By all means, seek alternate viewpoints, third party mediation or whatever. It's all acceptable to me.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Slander and incivility are the best ways to lose an argument and the fastest ways to get a block. It is evident that you are trolling, not helping to create an encyclopaedic article. I am prepared to engage in sensible discussions with anyone of any viewpoint, but from seeing your behaviour I don't think you are capable of this. As such, we have reached an impasse here. I have asked Soman for advice on a referral for comment, in which I hope that others from outside this talk page can give their suggestions.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Slander? that's a legal term. Making legal threats again, are we? That's another way to get a block you know. You have asked Soman? That's funny, that is. Soman is hardly a neutral third party observer. Just another chap who obfuscates talk pages with syntactically correct but semantically meaningless arguments and engages in drive-by reverts.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are slandering me with your ad hominem attacks, but I have not threatened legal action. I just don't think you are being constructive at all. I have asked Soman because I think he is a more experienced Wikipedian than I am so probably knows these procedures better.--Conjoiner (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Template:RFC error

• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• Unknown-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles