9 Jul 2019
22 Jun 2019
Does the Indian Communist have a future?
C: R Guha
In the April I found myself in Kerala. The Lok Sabha results were due in a few weeks; it seemed clear that, for the first time since Independence, the communists would be in single digits in the lower House of Parliament. It thus so happened that I was in India’s sole Left-ruled state on the eve of their eclipse as a national force.
If, in electoral terms, 2019 marks the nadir of the communist movement in India, the high point was 2004, when the communist parties had more than 60 seats in Parliament. Bengalis still lament Jyoti Basu not becoming prime minister in 1996. But, in retrospect, a far greater mistake was committed in 2004, when the CPI(M) and the Communist Party of India did not join the United Progressive Alliance government headed by Manmohan Singh. The United Front government of 1996-98 was in a minority, and even if Jyoti Basu had headed it, it would still have fallen within a couple of years . On the other hand, the UPA government ran for two full terms; had the communists joined the cabinet, and taken charge of such portfolios as education, health, and rural development, they could have helped improve people’s lives, while increasing the party’s visibility and profile across the country. Tragically, the CPI(M) was bound by Leninist dogma, which did not permit it to take up a supporting role in a ‘bourgeois government’.
At the national level, the parliamentary communists have descended from the high of 2004 to the low of 2019. Meanwhile, they are now out of office in Tripura and West Bengal, and are extremely unlikely to regain power in either of these states. Since Kerala usually alternates between the Left and the Congress, when assembly elections are next held the communists should find themselves in Opposition here as well.
In India today, some famous writers and artists think of themselves as being on the Left. So do some established scholars. However, in terms of its influence on politics and public life, the Indian Left has never been in a worse place. Can this change? Or is this political decline irreversible?
As I write this, against the backdrop of their near-rout in the last Lok Sabha elections, it is hard to think of the Left ever regaining the political salience it once had. But history acts in odd and unexpected ways. Who would have imagined that socialism would experience a resurgence in that most capitalist of countries, the United States of America? India remains a land marked by pervasive social inequalities. In theory, if not in practice, it remains fertile ground for the Left.
If the Left in India hopes or wishes to rise up from the ashes, then the first thing it must do is to become more Indian. In 1920, shortly before the Communist Party of India was established, the Mumbai Marxist, S.A. Dange wrote a pamphlet exalting Lenin over Gandhi. Ever since, Indian communists have found their heroes in a country other than India. They have venerated, in turn, the Germans Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Russians V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong of China, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, the Cuban Fidel Castro, and the Venezuelan Hugo Chávez.
The problem with these foreigners is not just that they were foreigners. They were also totalitarians, who believed in a one-party State run by themselves. The likes of Lenin and Mao had no understanding of India or of Indian society; nor an appreciation of the virtues of multiparty democracy either. By worshipping them at the expense of home-grown thinkers such as Gandhi and Ambedkar, the communists found themselves out of sync with Indian realities.
Younger readers may not be aware that, parallel to the growth of communism in the 1920s, an indigenous socialist tradition also took shape in India. Its exemplars included Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Rammanohar Lohia, and Jayaprakash Narayan, all of whom had a more original understanding of Indian society than their communist contemporaries. The thinking of Kamaladevi on gender, of Lohia on class, of JP on political decentralization, was far sharper than of S.A. Dange or E.M.S. Namboodiripad on these subjects. This is because the socialists took their clues from what they observed on the ground, whereas the communists mechanically followed the path laid down by Lenin and Stalin.
Is it too late for Indian communists to learn from the heritage of Indian socialists? They can likewise seek to indigenize themselves, and perhaps even adopt the ‘socialist’ label. To the 21st-century mind, the word ‘communist’ is indelibly associated with tyranny and authoritarianism. On the other hand, the word ‘socialist’ is more benign. True, it has currently been misappropriated by a family firm run by Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh. But it may be worth the effort to recapture the label, and rework it to more worthy ends.
In the wake of the Lok Sabha elections, there is talk of the need to ‘unify’ the different communist parties, and bring them under one platform. Were that to happen, the new, unified, party would need a new name. I suggest it junk the word ‘communist’, and characterize itself as ‘democratic socialist’ instead. That might be a modest first step towards a renewal of the Left, opening out for it a future in Indian politics, whereas at present it only has a past.
10 Jun 2019
ಜೋಯಿಡಾದ ಕಾಡ ಗರ್ಭದ ಘಾಡ ಮೌನದಲ್ಲಿ ಟಿಸಿಲೊಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆಯಾ ರವಿ ಬೆಳಗೆರೆ ಆತ್ಮಚರಿತ್ರೆ ?!
‘Fire and the Rain’: 13 pages of the last scene from ‘Agni Mattu Male’ which Girish Karnad translated
When Girish Karnad was named as World Theatre Ambassador of UNESCO’s international theatre institute in 2008, he bemoaned the lack of good translators.
“I may write in Kannada but the world only knows me through my English translations. I am an exceptional case in that I translate my own works into English. But Indian literature needs good translations — and translations are particularly important for plays and poetry,” he told The Hindu.
***
In Sirigannada, a collection of contemporary Kannada writings edited byVivek Shanbag and published in 2010 by Tranquebar, Girish Karnad masterfully translates the last scene from Agni Mattu Male.
">

">

">

">

">

">

">

10 May 2019
The amazing rise and dramatic fall of Ravi Prakash, a competent but colourful journalist who built one of India’s biggest, most influential news networks: TV9

©Churumuri
TV9 “chairman, CEO and editor” Ravi Prakash, who was sharing the stage with prime minister Narendra Modi at the launch of ‘TV9 Bharatvarsh’ just 40 days ago has been shown the door by the network’s new owners whom he, ironically, brought in to buy the company from its original promoter six months ago.


An official spokesman (see statement, above) confirmed that the board of directors, under the new management, had okayed the “removal” of Ravi Prakash as wholetime director on May 8, and an EGM of shareholders on May 10, had consented to the move.
Ravi Prakash reportedly did not attend either meeting.
Ravi Prakash, who owns 8.5 per cent in the holding company, Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd (ABCPL), however, shot off a “resignation” letter to the board in which he lashed out at them, calling them “representatives of political honchos who are out there to devour “EVERY” journalist and independent media house today”.

It is not clear who the “political honchos” Ravi Prakash refers to are—whether they are in Hyderabad or Delhi—but the removal/resignation of the pioneering TV journalist caps a dramatic couple of days in one of India’s most successful news networks, which has a presence in Telugu, Kannada, Marathi, Gujarati and English.
***


On Thursday, May 9, the residence and offices of Ravi Prakash were searched after two complaints of forgery, cheating and conspiracy had been lodged on April 24 and 30.
The headlines in today’s newspapers in Hyderabad said it all:
“Ravi Prakash out of TV9“, screams the Telugu daily Sakshi.
“TV9 CEO booked for forgery, quizzed,” reads The Times of India.“TV9 CEO forged papers, gave false info,” says Telangana Today.
“Forgery case: cops conduct searches at TV9 office,” says The New Indian Express.
The police searches had been followed by rumours of Ravi Prakash absconding; of his arrest; of his seeking anticipatory bail; of his passport being seized. But he put paid to those rumours by appearing ‘live’ on air on Thursday night to assert that he was very much in charge.

***
Depending on who you believe, behind the dramatic exit is a boardroom tussle over control of a powerful, multilingual network, with the unseen hands of ambitious politicians and businessmen guiding it from Hyderabad to New Delhi.
TV9 promoter Srini Raju, a cousin of Ramalinga Raju of the now-defunct Satyam Infotech, had been trying to cash out for a long time now. Potential suitors included The Times of India group, NewsX, and the usual suspect, Rajeev Chandrasekhar of Asianet.
The charitable view is that Ravi Prakash, who apparently got the My Home group, and Megha Engineering and Constructions—to shell out Rs 460 crore for a 90 per cent stake, to stave off Rajeev Chandrasekhar, wanted to run the company like he did in the past: independently, without any editorial interference.
The new management in the last six months is believed to have had a hands-off approach like Srini Raju, except that, as an active investor, it wanted its own men on the board, which Ravi Prakash is alleged to have resisted by forging signatures, a charge which even his detractors find it difficult to believe.
“The new owners wanted to know the company better. Ravi was not used to dealing with people like these,” says an insider. The buzz in Hyderabad is that at least one of the new owners is extremely close to the Telangana Rashtriya Samithi (TRS).
TV9 had initially been valued at around Rs 1,200 crore but that valuation was driven down by a boycott of the channel by cable owners in the Hyderabad/Telangana region in protest at the depiction of TRS politicians. Wink, wink.
***
The conspiracy theory is that the change of ownership of TV9 and the change of helmsmanship has all to do with the national ambitions of Telangana politicians. Ravi Prakash, by this reading, had been told that he could stay on for six months but he was now insistent on clinging on.
The backdated sale of shares to Telugu actor Sivaji, who did a sting operation titled ‘Operation Garuda‘ to show how the BJP was trying to overthrow the Andhra Pradesh government by buying up MLAs like in Karnataka, seems to have muddied the waters further.
The matter is now before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and likely to come up on May 16.
***

Against this background buzz, TV9 launched its Hindi channel TV9 Bharatvarsh on March 31, where Narendra Modi came and spoke. The new owners, according to one source, was either not informed of, or invited to, the new channel’s launch.
Modi was received by Ravi Prakash (second from right, in picture), and editorial consultant Hemant Sharma who had left Rajat Sharma‘s India TV under the cloud of the medical college scam.
As the PM and CEO walk into the venue, Modi tells Ravi Prakash that he had recruited people whose are congenitally ill-disposed towards him.
“We are bringing in changes.” replies Ravi Prakash.
To that extent, the removal/resignation marks a stunning denouement for a competent but colourful journalist.
TV9 Kannada head Mahendra Mishra has been appointed TV9 interim CEO.