Re: [新聞] 印度毛派共黨3號人物遭擊斃
Azad恐怕不是像官方說法那樣,是在毛派占據制高點對警方開火時,被警方擊斃的.
疑點在於,雖然是被位於高處的毛派射擊,不過警方人員卻毫無死傷.最重要的,是根
據驗屍報告Azad的致命傷是近距離零角度槍傷,這顯然是遭到警方近距離處決.
Azad很可能是在進行和平談判的任務時遭警方處決而喪命.
政府對印度毛派的清勦牽涉到了國大黨,印共(馬列派)為首的"左派"聯盟;毛派與TMC
複雜的聯合與敵對關係.在以清除毛派內部判亂為名,企圖強行徵收部落民所在的礦產
資源豐富的土地供大企業獲利的鎮壓行動中,執政的國大黨與印共(馬列派)是站在同
一陣線的.同時在西曼谷執政33年的印共(馬列派)也因為長期暴力打壓貧民抗爭,跟資本
財團的利益密切結和而使得在地元的民意支持度逐漸下滑,地方上的統治地位受到目前據
有國家鐵路部長職位的TMC強力挑戰.毛派秉持著"敵人的敵人即是盟友"的原則,投機
的選擇與和印度教至上主義政黨BJP的前盟友TMC合作,企圖在選戰中為TMC提供些許左派
光環掩護.因此在這次事件中,TMC的主席鐵路部長Mamata Banerjee跳出來批評官方說法
有問題,然後印共(馬列派)則譴責Mamata Banerjee違反內閣成員應遵守的紀律,順便藉此
向國大黨表態印共(馬列派)是比TMC更符合國大黨利益的結盟對象,希望因此在地方政權
守衛戰中,減低來自TMC的壓力.
以為貧民爭取權利的社運觀點來看,不論是跟大資本的利益徹底結合的印共(馬列派),或
著以警方為對象,進行無益流血行動,還一面"和資產階級中的進步份子"做投機合作的毛
派,恐怕都不是解決問題的出口.
Indian state murdered Maoist peace envoy
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/indi-s14.shtml
By Kranti Kumara and Keith Jones
14 September 2010
In their speeches to last month's Independence Day celebrations at Delhi's
Red Fort, both India's president, Pratibha Patil, and prime minister,
Manmohan Singh, offered talks to the Maoist Naxalite movement if it eschews “
violence.” Not surprisingly, neither of them mentioned the Indian state's
recent summary execution of a top Maoist leader and “peace” interlocutor,
Cherukuri Azad Rajkumar.
Rajkumar, who was commonly known as Azad, and freelance journalist
Hemachandra Pandey, were killed by the Andhra Pradesh state police on July 1.
Azad was reportedly an envoy of the Communist Party of India (Maoist)
appointed to explore the possibility of “peace-talks” with the Indian
government. It is within this context that his killing acquires a singular
significance.
The Andhra Pradesh police have claimed that Azad was killed on the evening of
July 1 when a police party ran into an armed-group of Maoist guerillas in a
forested part of the Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh. According to the
police, a 30-minute gun battle ensued between them and the Maoists, who were
up on a hill, and during this battle Azad and Pandey were killed. Although
the police claim to have been in a firefight with heavily armed Maoists on
higher ground, they did not suffer any injuries.
From the beginning the Maoists and Azad's family members, including a
colonel in the Indian Army, have challenged the police story, charging that
the gun battle was a police fabrication and that Azad and Pandey, who was
travelling with him, were summarily executed.
Azad's family have charged that he and Pandey were seized in Nagpur, a city
in the neighbouring state of Maharashtra, transported to a forest area near
Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, then murdered in cold blood.
That the police's story is a lie and Azad the victim of a summary execution
is demonstrated by an exposé published as the September 6, 2010 cover story
of Outlook India, a prominent weekly news magazine. Titled “Death by an Inch
… Lies by the Mile,” the Outlook India report is based on a postmortem
analysis of Azad's corpse carried out by forensic experts.
While the police claim to have killed Azad at a distance in a shootout, the
July 3 forensic report clearly establishes that the bullet that killed the
Maoist leader was fired from a handgun held less than 7.5 cm from his body.
Moreover the bullet did not enter Azad’s body at an angle, although he was
purportedly shot by police firing from further down a hill.
The Outlook India article begins as follows: “Dead men tell no tales. But
when the deceased is Chemkuri Azad Rajkumar, the manner of death can speak
volumes. The Maoist leader’s post-mortem report, which Outlook has now
accessed, categorically establishes that he died in a fake encounter. Read
along with the FIR [First Investigation Report] and inquest reports, it
exposes the elaborate set of lies drawn by the Andhra Pradesh police to
explain his death. The claimed encounter, a much-touted ‘gain’ in the
[United Progressive Alliance—UPA] government’s war against India's ‘
gravest internal security threat’, was in fact a cold-blooded execution by
the state. Azad, a key player in the planned negotiations with the
government, was picked up and shot with a handgun from a distance barely more
than the size of an outstretched palm. The official version, that the Maoists
were atop a hill and fired at the police party and Azad died when the cops
retaliated from down below, just doesn't add up.” (For the full report see
Death By An Inch... Lies By The Mile)
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266865
The UPA government, which is led by the Congress Party, has dismissed any
suggestion that Azad was killed under suspicious circumstances or that the
death of the Naxalite leader mandated to explore the possibility of talks
with the government could in any way impact on relations between the Maoists
and the state.
In an interview following the publication of the Outlook India exposé, Home
Secretary G.K. Pillai declared, “We are with the report filed by the state
[government] on the issue. If the court finds it all dissatisfying, then
there will be an independent or magisterial inquiry as per the court
directive. The home ministry will not initiate a separate inquiry.”
In justifying this stance, the UPA government has advanced the novel argument
that it legally cannot take any action since “law and order” is the
responsibility of the states.
By this subterfuge, the UPA government is effectively condoning murder.
But the central government's involvement in Azad's summary execution may
well extend far beyond this. Under conditions where the central Indian
government and its security agencies are waging a massive, coordinated
multi-state offensive against the Maoists—Operation Green Hunt—and there is
evidence that Azad was seized in another state, there is little reason to
believe the authorities’ claims that the Andhra Police are alone responsible
for the security-intelligence operation that culminated in his execution.
The Congress Party state government, meanwhile, is tenaciously sticking to
the story concocted by the Andhra Pradesh police and has ruled out any
judicial investigation of the circumstances surrounding Azad's death.
Successive governments in the state, under both Congress and Telugu Desam
Party rule, have a long record of executing persons associated with the
Maoist movement.
India's ruling elite claims to preside over the world's “largest democracy.
” But in practice it uses brutal and illegal methods—including torture,
disappearances and summary executions—to suppress challenges to the state
whether from nationalist-separatists in Kashmir and the northeast, Maoist
insurgents, or Islamacist terrorists. Protests of ordinary workers and
peasants, meanwhile, are frequently violently repressed.
UPA leaders claim to be interested in peace talks with the Maoists. But their
support for the summary execution of the Maoist's peace interlocutor and
insistence that any talks be conditional on the Maoists’ not only agreeing
to a truce but forsaking all violence, underlines that this is a smokescreen.
India's Congress Party-led government is intent on widening the
counter-insurgency war it has been waging since last fall across the eastern
Indian states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, and West Bengal with tens of
thousand of Indian Army-trained and -supported paramilitaries.
CPM Stalinists support cover-up of Azad’s execution
In keeping with its role as a political prop of the Indian bourgeoisie, the
Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM, the chief component of
the Left Front, has provided a “left cover” to the UPA government’s
Operation Green Hunt.
The Stalinists blithely ignore Prime Minister Singh’s frank admission that
the purpose of the counter-insurgency campaign is to assert government
control over the country’s tribal areas so that their mineral and forest
wealth can be exploited by big business.
This support has included the CPM and West Bengal's CPM-led Left Front
government denouncing Mamata Banerjee, the head of the West Bengal-based
Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the UPA government's railway minister, for
urging talks with the Maoists and condemning Azad's death as “murder.”
Speaking last month at a rally in the Lalgarh region of West Bengal, the
center of the Maoist insurgency in the state, Banerjee declared, “Azad has
been murdered … It was an injustice. Azad had started a peace process. His
initiatives should be restarted.”
The Indian police and security forces have a long and sordid history of
summary executions cloaked as “encounter killings” or firefights. Yet an
editorial in the CPM's English language weekly People's Democracy was
indignant that Banerjee challenged the official story. Banerjee, complained
the Stalinists, “has gone to the extent of asserting that Maoist leader Azad
was ‘murdered’ and not killed in an encounter as claimed by the security
forces.”
West Bengal Chief Minister and CPM Politburo member Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee
and other top officials of the Left Front government and CPM even held
discussions as to whether they could bring some form of legal action against
Banerjee on the grounds that she had violated the constitution by speaking on
a matter that falls under the purview of the Home Ministry and for violating
cabinet discipline by publicly urging the pulling back of security forces
from Lalgarh.
“We are consulting lawyers on the matter [as to] whether a Cabinet Minister
can stand against the decision of the government,” a senior CPM leader told
the Indian Express. “The joint operation against the Maoists follows the
decision of the Union government, but the Railway Minister has been talking
against the operation publicly. Moreover, at the Lalgarh rally she has
expressed a different view about Azad’s death. We think her remarks and
statements are a gross deviation from the Constitutional directives.”
The CPM is utterly indifferent to the vital democratic and constitutional
issues involved in the state’s use of summary execution. Indeed, with their
denunciations of Banerjee for charging that Azad was murdered and urging his
death be investigated, the Stalinists are aiding and abetting this heinous
crime.
For months, the CPM has been appealing to the Congress Party leadership to
sack Banerjee from her UPA ministry on the grounds that she does not
subscribe to Manmohan Singh’s claim that the Maoists constitute India’s “
greatest internal security threat” and has been colluding with the Maoists.
Fearing defeat in next year's West Bengal state election, the CPM leadership
is desperate to persuade the Congress Party—the Indian bourgeoisie's
premier party of government and principal enforcer of its neo-liberal agenda—
to break its electoral alliance with the TMC, the Left’s main electoral
rival in the state.
In making this appeal, the CPM is openly arguing that it is a more reliable
partner for the Congress Party and UPA government than the TMC because of its
fulsome support for Operation Green Hunt and ruthless pursuit of pro-investor
policies.
At a function held in June to mark 33 years of Left Front rule, West Bengal
Chief Minister Bhattacharjee promoted the CPM as the guarantor of order in
the state, asserting that “change being sought” by the opposition parties “
will result in anarchy.” Referring to the Trinamool Congress's attempt to
exploit peasants’ anger over the state government's expropriation of their
land for a Tata car manufacturing plant at Singur, Bhattacharjee asked, “
Will West Bengal be witness to only Singurs where investment will be turned
away?”
Mamata Banerjee is, unquestionably, a reactionary demagogue, who is merely
posturing as a friend of the tribals of Lalgarh, just as she previously
postured as a supporter of the peasants in Nandigram and Singur who opposed
the expropriation of their land by the CPM-led West Bengal government for big
business Special Economic Zones.
But her posturing would have no political traction were it not for the
Stalinists’ ruthless pursuit of pro-investor policies—policies that have
produced growing anger and disaffection among the state's workers and
toilers as social inequality and economic insecurity mount.
And the Left Front government's treatment of the state's tribal peoples has
been little different from that of India’s other governments.
Under both colonial and independent bourgeois rule, the tribals have suffered
from state indifference—the government has failed to provide them with
schools, health care and other facilities—and brutality. In the name of
development, 8.5 million tribal people have been driven during the past two
decades from the lands that historically provided them with their livelihood
and are at the root of their culture and identity and transformed into
wandering casual laborers.
Operation Green Hunt is an instrument for the intensification of the
oppression of the tribal peoples, to reassert state control over their lands
so as to facilitate big business resource extraction projects and the
transformation of the tribals into wage-laborers.
To recognize this and oppose the Indian state's counter-insurgency war does
not in any way imply that the Maoists’ armed struggle is progressive.
Decades ago the Maoists turned their backs on urban India, thereby helping
reinforce the political hold of the Stalinist parliamentary parties over the
working class. And while they and the CPM are involved in a bitter,
oftentimes armed, conflict they share a common Stalinist heritage in the
pre-1964 Communist Party of India (CPI) and both continue to insist, as did
and does the CPI, that the struggle for socialism is not on the agenda in
India. Rather, they insist, “socialists” must align with the “progressive”
sections of the national bourgeoisie to complete the “democratic,” that is
capitalist, revolution.
Thus the Maoists have developed an alliance with the UPA minister and former
ally of the Hindu supremacist BJP Mamata Banerjee and her TMC and have made
it clear that they support her bid to come to power in the state.
It is essential to draw a balance sheet of over six decades of bourgeois rule
in the subcontinent: Only the development of a politically independent and
internationally oriented working class movement in India that rallies all the
toilers in a struggle against capitalism can liberate the tribals from
oppression and exploitation.
The authors also recommend:
Sabotage of West Bengal train leads to 148 deaths, sparks reactionary
political furor
[5 July 2010]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/trai-j05.shtml
Indian Stalinists provide “left” cover for government's anti-Maoist
counter-insurgency war
[8 December 2009]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/indi-d08.shtml
Indian government to launch major military offensive against Maoist insurgents
[17 October 2009]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/indi-o17.shtml
India's Lalgarh “uprising”—Rival Stalinist camps abet reaction
[1 July 2009]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/beng-j01.shtml
--
30歲以前的李根政，除了在學校教書外，便沈浸於藝術創作中，認為那是畢生
的追尋，但，「我是要以行動愛護這塊大地，或只是要幫大地畫遺照？」
GREEN PARTY 綠黨電子報
訂閱請至網址：http://greenpartytwweekly.blogspot.com/
部份電郵會掃到垃圾郵件，收信請至垃圾郵件夾予以復原。
PTT綠黨板: 國家研究院-->政治,文學,學術-->PoliticMan-->GreenParty
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.33.44.46
※ 編輯: swallow73 來自: 114.33.44.46 (09/14 22:37)