Free download of Karl Marx's Das Kapital

Marx in 1875

Updated links all three links working!


DOWNLOAD LINKS:

PART-1


PART-2


PART-3

Biography of Friedrich Engels

Friedrich Engels

Early years

Friedrich Engels was born in Barmen, Rhine Province of the kingdom of Prussia (now a part of Wuppertal in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) as the elder son of a German textile manufacturer, with whom he had a strained relationship.^[1] Due to family circumstances, Engels dropped out of High school and was sent to work as a nonsalaried office clerk at a commercial house in Bremen in 1838.^[2][3] During this time, Engels began reading the philosophy of Hegel, whose teachings had dominated German philosophy at the time. In September 1838, he published his first work, a poem titled The Bedouin, in the Bremisches Conversationsblatt No. 40. He also engaged in other literary and journalistic work.^[4][5] In 1841, Engels joined the Prussian Army as a member of the Household Artillery. This position moved him to Berlin where he attended university lectures, began to associate with groups of Young Hegelians and published several articles in the Rheinische Zeitung.^[3] Throughout his lifetime, Engels would point out that he was indebted to German philosophy because of its effect on his intellectual development.^[2]

England

In 1842, the 22-year-old Engels was sent to Manchester, England to work for the textile firm of Ermen and Engels in which his father was a shareholder.^[6][7] Engels' father thought that working at the Manchester firm might make Engels reconsider the radical leanings that he had developed in high school.^[2][7] On his way to Manchester, Engels visited the office of the Rheinische Zeitung and met Karl Marx for the first time - though they did not impress each other.^[8] In Manchester, Engels met Mary Burns, a young woman with whom he began a relationship that lasted until her death in 1862.^[9] Mary acted as a guide through Manchester and helped introduce Engels to the English working class. The two maintained a lifelong relationship; they never married, as Engels was against the institution of marriage which he saw as unnatural and unjust.^[10]

During his time in Manchester, Engels took notes and personally observed the horrible working conditions of English workers. These notes and observations, along with his experience working in his father's commercial firm, formed the basis for his first book The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. While writing it, Engels continued his involvement with radical journalism and politics. He frequented some members of the English labour and Chartist movements and wrote for several journals, including The Northern Star, Robert Owen’s New Moral World and the Democratic Review newspaper.^[11][9]

Paris

After a productive stay in England, Engels decided to return to Germany in 1844. On his way, he stopped in Paris to meet Karl Marx, with whom he had an earlier correspondence. Marx and Engels met at the Café de la Régence on the Place du Palais, 28 August 1844. The two became close friends and would remain so for their entire lives. Engels ended up staying in Paris to help Marx write The Holy Family, which was an attack on the Young Hegelians and the Bauer brothers. Engels' earliest contribution to Marx's work was writing to the Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher journal, which was edited by both Marx and Arnold Ruge in Paris in the same year.^[6]

Brussels

From 1845 to 1848, Engels and Marx lived in Brussels, spending much of their time organizing the city's German workers. Shortly after their arrival, they contacted and joined the underground German Communist League and were commissioned by the League to write a pamphlet explaining the principles of communism. This became the The Manifesto of the Communist Party, better known as the Communist Manifesto. It was first published on 21 February 1848.^[2]

Return to Prussia

During February 1848, there was a revolution in France that eventually spread to other Western European countries. This event caused Engels & Marx to go back to their home country of Prussia, specifically the city of Cologne. While living in Cologne, they created and served as editors for a new daily newspaper called the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.^[6] However, during June 1849 Prussian coup d'état the newspaper was suppressed. After the coup, Marx lost his Prussian citizenship, was deported, and fled to Paris and then London. Engels stayed in Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany as an aide-de-camp in the volunteer corps of August Willich.^[12] When the uprising was crushed, Engels managed to escape by traveling through Switzerland as a refugee and returned to England.^[2]

Back in Manchester

Once Engels made it to England, he decided to re-enter the commercial firm where his father held shares in order to help support Marx. He hated this work intensely but knew that his friend needed the support.^[13][14] He started off as an office clerk, the same position he held in his teens, but eventually worked his way up to become a joint proprietor in 1864. Five years later, Engels retired from the business to focus more on his studies.^[6] At this time, Marx was living in London but they were able to exchange ideas through daily correspondence. In 1870, Engels moved to London where he and Marx lived until Marx's death in 1883.^[2] His London home at this time and until his death was 122 Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, NW1.^[15] Marx's first London residence was a cramped apartment at 28 Dean Street, Soho. From 1856, he lived at 9 Grafton Terrace, Kentish Town, and then in a tenement at 41 Maitland Park Road from 1875 until his death.^[16]

Later years

After Marx's death, Engels devoted much of his remaining years to editing Marx's unfinished volumes of Capital. However, he also contributed significantly to other areas. Engels made an argument using anthropological evidence of the time to show that family structures have changed over history, and that the concept of monogamous marriage came from the necessity within class society for men to control women to ensure their own children would inherit their property. He argued a future communist society would allow people to make decisions about their relationships free from economic constraints. One of the best examples of Engels' thoughts on these issues are in his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

Engels died of throat cancer in London in 1895.^[17] Following cremation at Brookwood Cemetery near Woking, his ashes were scattered off Beachy Head, near Eastbourne as he had requested.^[17][18]

Major Works

The Holy Family (1844)

The Holy Family was a book written by Marx & Engels in November 1844. The book is a critique on the Young Hegelians and their trend of thought which was very popular in academic circles at the time. The title was a suggestion by the publisher and is meant as a sarcastic reference to the Bauer Brothers and their supporters.^[19] The book created a controversy with much of the press and caused Bruno Bauer to attempt to refute the book in an article which was published in Wigand's Vierteljahrsschrift in 1845. Bauer claimed that Marx and Engels misunderstood what he was trying to say. Marx later replied to his response with his own article that was published in the journal Gesellschaftsspiegel in January 1846. Marx also discussed the argument in chapter 2 of The German Ideology.^[19]

The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (1844)

Main article: The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844

The Condition of the Working Class is a detailed description and analysis of the appalling conditions of the working class in Britain and Ireland during Engels' stay in England. It was considered a classic in its time and still widely available today. This work also had many seminal thoughts on the state of socialism and its development.

Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science (1878)

Main article: Anti-Dühring

Popularly known as Anti-Dühring, Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science is a detailed critique of the philosophical positions of Eugen Dühring, a German philosopher and critic of Marxism. In the course of replying to Dühring, Engels reviews recent advances in science and mathematics and seeks to demonstrate the way in which the concepts of dialectics apply to natural phenomena. Many of these ideas were later developed in the unfinished work, Dialectics of Nature. The last section of Anti-Dühring was later edited and published under the separate title, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880)

Main article: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

In the most popular pamphlet by Marx and Engels after The Communist Manifesto^[20], Engels critiques the utopian socialists, such as Fourier and Owen, and provides an explanation of the socialist framework for understanding capitalism.

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884)

Main article: The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State is an important and detailed seminal work connecting capitalism with what Engels argues is an ever changing institution - the family. It was written when Engels was 64 years of age and at the height of his intellectual power and contains a comprehensive historical view of the family in relation to the issues of class, female subjugation and private property.

Protecting Indian People from the Global Economic Crisis

Protecting Indian People from the Global Economic Crisis

Introduction

It is clear by now that the global financial crisis has graduated into a global economic crisis of serious proportions. The advanced economies are set to experience a protracted recession and the developing countries across the world, including the Indian economy, will also be adversely affected.

The UPA Government’s responses to this evolving situation, however, have been extremely disappointing. Ever since the Government has come out of its initial state of denial, the measures adopted by it reflect on the one hand a sheer lack of comprehension of the causes behind and the proportions of the current crisis and on the other hand a proclivity towards appeasing myriad financial interests and corporate lobbies. The fact that the UPA Government is relying upon only one policy instrument, namely the interest rate, to both control inflation as well as reverse the growth slowdown betrays the illogic behind its policy paradigm. It is a rudimentary lesson in economic theory that two policy goals cannot be achieved using a single policy instrument.

The UPA Government has so far chosen to meet only the corporate bigwigs and bankers in order to discuss policy responses; neither have the State Governments nor other political parties, trade unions, farmers’ organisations and other organisations representing crucial stakeholders been consulted. It is indeed strange that at a time when the neoliberal vision of putting corporate profits over peoples’ interest and relying upon ‘trickle down economics’ is getting discredited across the world, the economic managers of the UPA Government are clinging on to it. In this backdrop, the CPI (M) is putting forward a set of concrete suggestions in order to tackle the adverse impact of the global recession on the Indian economy and protect the interests of the people.

Broad-based Growth through Fiscal Stimulus

v A special fiscal package should be announced by the Central Government directed at increasing public expenditure in ways which increases the income and consumption of the working people, especially the vulnerable sections, and ensure broad-based growth.

v This is an appropriate time to expand the fiscal deficit not only by the Central Government, but also the State Governments. The FRBM Act should be scrapped and a comprehensive debt relief scheme for the State Governments adopted to encourage them to adopt expansionary fiscal stances.

Protecting Existing Jobs

v Protection of domestic jobs must be the priority of the Government in the backdrop of the global recession.

v The Government should announce a moratorium on job or wage cuts in the organised sector, in the interest of the national economy, since such job or wage cuts would further depress demand and aggravate the situation. The extant labour laws should be duly invoked by the State Governments to prevent retrenchments and lay offs.

v The burden of cost adjustment should first fall on profits and executive pay, which have ballooned during the recent period. India requires an Inco3mes Policy whereby executive pay is linked to prices and the minimum wage earned by workers.

Specific Measures to Boost the Real Economy

v The Government has to undertake massive public investment directed at sectors which are employment intensive and capable of creating employment demand for those likely to lose jobs in the export-oriented sectors.

v Employment Guarantee: The NREGA should be strengthened and extended to the urban areas. Extending the period of guaranteed employment beyond 100 days should also be considered.

v Agriculture: Foodgrains production has to be encouraged and public procurement operations expanded for all major crops across the country. The allocations for the Food Security Mission and the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana should be enhanced substantially. Public investment in irrigation also needs to be stepped up substantially. For cash crops like cotton and oilseeds, import protection should be accorded through higher tariffs. Protection should also be extended to cash crops like rubber, cashew etc. to prevent sharp falls in prices.

v Food and Fuel Prices: The hikes in the prices of diesel and petrol by Rs.4 and Rs.2 respectively, must be withdrawn without further delay, in view of the sharp fall in international oil prices (which have fallen below $60 per barrel). The PDS needs to be universalized and strengthened drastically by reducing the issue price so that subsidised foodgrains can reach every settlement in the country. This is essential for boosting consumption demand in the economy.

v Retail Trade: With slower growth in consumption, the businesses of small and unorganised retailers are bound to be hit, affecting their livelihood. In this backdrop, allowing big organised retailers to expand their businesses and capture greater market shares would only aggravate the situation. A policy to strictly regulate the operations of domestic corporate retailers and restrict their unbridled expansion is urgently required.

v Small-Scale Industries: Crisis affecting the small-scale industries would cause massive job losses and affect livelihoods on a massive scale. The Government needs to devise sector specific relief packages, especially for export-oriented and labour intensive sectors like garments and leather, keeping the interests of the small-scale industries and their workers in mind. The relief packages should include rescheduling of bank credit as well as direct subsidies and should also incentivise job protection.

v Tariff Protection: In order to ensure that the demand injected into the economy through public investment does not leak out through increased imports, increasing customs duties should be considered. Further tariff concessions under NAMA or entering into structurally unequal trade agreements like the proposed EU-India FTA should be ruled out.

Tightening Financial Regulation and Reviving Development Finance

v Regulation should be strengthened in the financial sector and state control over finance need to be reasserted in order to revive development finance. While curbing reckless flow of credit to fuel elite consumption and asset price bubbles, credit should be directed towards employment intensive sectors like agriculture and small-scale industries.

v Capital Account Convertibility: Measures undertaken to liberalize the capital account as per the Tarapore Committee recommendations need to be reversed and strict controls reimposed on the outflow and inflow of capital.

v Participatory Notes: PNs, which are non-transparent derivative instruments used by the FIIs to invest money in the Indian capital market on behalf of undisclosed entities and individuals, should be prohibited. Allowing speculative hedge funds and other dubious entities to invest in Indian markets without any adherence to disclosure norms is the antithesis of prudential regulation.

v Banking and Insurance Sector Deregulation: The Government should abandon the moves to further deregulate the banking and insurance sectors through legislation like the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Bill, the State Bank of India (Amendment) Bill and increasing the FDI cap in the insurance sector from the present 26% to 49%.

v Pension Reforms: Pension reforms should be abandoned by the UPA Government and the PFRDA Bill scrapped. The Pension Scheme for Government employees should be reworked to ensure minimum guaranteed pension.

Obama's victory sparks cheers

PARIS (AP): The election of Barack Obama as the first black man in the White House unleashed a global tide of admiration, hopes for change, and even renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling good will during the Bush administration.

In Europe on Wednesday, some likened Obama's stunning ascent power to Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon, the release of Nelson Mandela and the fall of the Berlin Wall as a turning point for humanity. The president of Kenya declared a public holiday in Obama's honor, and people across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn Wednesday to watch U.S. election history being made.

In London, a young boy on his way to school punched the air and cried 'OB-A-MA! OB-A-MA!' In the town of Obama, Japan, dancers cheered in delight when their namesake's victory was declared.

Yet celebrations were often also tempered by sobering concerns that a 47-year-old man with limited experience of government faces global challenges as momentous as the hopes his campaign inspired _ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the elusive hunt for peace in the Middle East and a global economy in turmoil.

In the Muslim world, skepticism remained high that Obama would make much difference. Many elsewhere expressed hope for a more balanced, less confrontational America, but said they also expect Obama to put U.S. interests first.

As they savored the moment, some people were prepared to temporarily forget the difficulties ahead for Obama and even forgive American voters for the Bush years, when U.S. ties with many countries grew strained. In countries where the idea of a minority member being elected leader is unthinkable, people expressed amazement and satisfaction that the United States overcame centuries of racial strife to elect an African-American president _ and one with Hussein as a middle name. Some said that U.S. voters had blazed a trail that minorities elsewhere could follow.

``This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times 10,'' Rama Yade, France's black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. ``America is rebecoming a New World.''

``On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes,'' she said.

In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Armstrong's 1969 Moon landing to describe Obama's election as ``one giant leap for mankind.''

In Rio, Brazilians partied on the beach. Akihiko Mukohama, the lead singer of a band that traveled to Obama, Japan, to perform, gushed that Obama's election ``is going to change the world.'' In Indonesia, where Obama lived as a child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school cheered when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted ``Obama! Obama!''

``What an inspiration. He is the first truly global U.S. president the world has ever had,'' said Pracha Kanjananont, a 29-year-old Thai sitting at a Starbuck's in Bangkok. ``He had an Asian childhood, African parentage and has a Middle Eastern name. He is a truly global president.''

Hopes were high that Obama would act as an antidote to the anger felt toward Bush, perceived by many as a go-it-alone president who ignored international opposition in going to war in Iraq. Many said they expected that an Obama victory would herald a more inclusive, internationally cooperative U.S. approach. Many cited the Iraq war as a type of blunder Obama was unlikely to repeat. Callers to French radio RTL said how pleased they were to see Bush leave and Obama arrive.

``We hated Bush so much and we wanted so much to love America _ and now, again, we can,'' said Dominique Moisi, one of France's foremost foreign policy analysts.

Europe, where Obama is overwhelmingly popular, is one region that looked eagerly to an Obama administration for a revival in warm relations.

``At a time when we have to confront immense challenges together, your election raises great hopes in France, in Europe and in the rest of the world,'' French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a congratulations letter to Obama.

Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski spoke of ``a new America with a new credit of trust in the world.''

The magnitude and emotion of the world reaction illustrated the international character of the U.S. presidency. It also showed how many still look to Washington as the place where global issues of war and peace, prosperity or crisis, are decided.

``This is an enormous outcome for all of us,'' said John Wood, the former New Zealand ambassador to the U.S. ``We have to hope and pray that President Obama can move forward in ways which are constructive and beneficial to all of us.''

Skepticism, however, was high in the Muslim world, where the Bush administration alienated many with the Iraq war, the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Some Iraqis said they would believe positive change when they saw it.

``Obama's victory will do nothing for the Iraqi issue nor for the Palestinian issue,'' said Muneer Jamal, a Baghdad resident. ``I think all the promises Obama made during the campaign will remain mere promises.''

In Pakistan, a country vital to the U.S.-led war on the al-Qaida terrorist network and neighbor to Afghanistan, many hoped Obama would bring some respite from rising militant violence that many blame on Bush.

Still, Mohammed Arshad, a 28-year-old schoolteacher in the capital, Islamabad, doubted Obama's ability to change U.S. foreign policy dramatically.

``It is true that Bush gave America a very bad name. He has become a symbol of hate. But I don't think the change of face will suddenly make any big difference,'' he said.

Obama also faced skepticism on the other side of the Mideast divide, in Israel.

Shoshana Bair, 27, an Orthodox Jewish woman who runs a medical not-for-profit group in Jerusalem, was fearful that Obama's allegiance would lie with the Palestinians and that Israel would be pushed into ``land concessions without receiving anything in return, and the division of Jerusalem,'' the holy city that both Jews and Palestinians claim as their capital.

The economy is another challenge of international concern. Many expressed hope that Obama would help reverse the punishing financial meltdown and said they expected that fixing the U.S. economy would be his first priority. But some in Asia, a region heavily dependent on exports to the U.S. market, worried the Democrat would try to protect American producers at their expense.

The huge weight of responsibilities on Obama's shoulders was also a worry for some. French former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Obama's biggest challenge would be managing a punishing agenda of various crises in the United States and the world. ``He will need to fight on every front,'' he said.

Still, many around the world found Obama's international roots compelling and attractive. That a country where blacks were segregated when Obama was a child now voted him into power was an inspiration to many beyond U.S. shores.

The leader of Nigeria, Africa's most-populous nation, hailed the dawn of ``a totally and completely new era.''

Obama's election, said President Umaru Yar'Adua, ``has finally broken the greatest barrier of prejudice in human history.''

In the name of law-human rights violation

A law and its victim

AJOY ASHIRWAD MAHAPRASHASTA

The detention for 90 days of a film-maker under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act points to the law’s dangerous nature.

PHOTOGRAPHS: WWW.RELEASEAJAYTG.IN

A poster of the Committee For The Release Of Ajay TG, which was formed to campaign against the arrest.

“I DO not ask for mercy. Section 124(A), under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite violence,” said Mahatma Gandhi during his trial after his arrest during the Non-Cooperation Movement.

The Mahatma’s address to the jury was, perhaps, the most revealing description of the political impasse created then by a piece of British legislation. Section 124 of the IPC, framed by the British, continues to remain in force. This section, which describes “sedition”, says, “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.” The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Sixty-one years after India managed to break away from the British colonisers, the dreaded impasse seems to persist in the State of Chhattisgarh. On May 5, Ajay Thachhappully Gangadharan, an independent documentary film-maker and a freelance journalist, was arrested by the Chhattisgarh Police and sent to jail on allegations of association with the Communist Party of India (Maoist), an unlawful organisation, and sedition.

He was kept behind bars for three months. The Chhattisgarh Police, investigating the case, failed to file a charge-sheet against him within the mandatory period of 90 days. Ajay was, therefore, granted statutory bail by the Durg District Court and released from prison on August 5. Despite finding no evidence against him, the police have not closed the case. The bail order required Ajay to present a personal bond of Rs.50,000, two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, and an affidavit with a list of his movable and immovable property, and appear at the local police station on the second Monday of every month. The bail also denied him the right to travel outside India without the court’s permission.

Public support

Ajay Thachhappully Gangadharam and wife Shobha with pupils and teachers of the school that they started in a slum cluster of Bhilai.

A committee for the release of Ajay was formed after his arrest. It includes names such as playwright Habib Tanvir, social activists Aruna Roy, Harsh Mander, Sudhir Patnaik and Banwari Lal Sharma, academic Kamal Mitra Chenoy, law researcher Usha Ramanathan, journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, and film-makers Ranjan Palit and Amar Kanwar.

The committee has been organising shows and public meetings all over India to sensitise people, not just about Ajay’s case but also about the draconian impact of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2006 (CSPSA), and Section 124(A) of the IPC. Several petitions condemning Ajay’s arrest have been subsequently filed by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), some film-makers and Amnesty International.

Amnesty International says, “We have reason to believe that the charges against Ajay are politically motivated. Ajay has been actively engaged since 2004 in documentation of human rights violations as part of the PUCL’s ongoing efforts to protect the rights of Adivasi communities in the face of escalating violence in the Bastar-Dantewada area of Chhattisgarh between banned Maoists and Salwa Judum, an armed anti-Maoist militia campaign widely regarded as supported by the State government.”

Historians such as Ramachandra Guha have also voiced their support. “I know Ajay and can attest, as a mutual friend puts it, that for all forms of violence he has a deep and abiding distaste,” Guha says. The CSPSA, under which Ajay was arrested, contains a broad definition of what constitutes an unlawful activity (Section 2), which can be invoked to clamp down on the freedom of expression and the rights of journalists.

Punishment of up to seven years’ imprisonment is prescribed under the law for uttering words, or writing or making visual representations that create “risk or danger for public order, peace or public tranquillity” (Section 8).

Moreover, any organisation can be declared unlawful by issuing a government notification. But Usha Ramanathan says that although the government is obliged to specify the reasons for declaring an organisation unlawful, it may dispense with that requirement if, in its opinion, that is against the public interest to do so (Sections 2 and 3). She adds that the Act gives the powers to notify and take possession of the places and the property used for the purpose of “unlawful activities” (Sections 9, 10 and 11).

The Chhattisgarh Police picked up 42-year-old Ajay on May 5 on charges of “being part of an urban network of naxals”. The Director-General of Police of Chhattisgarh Vishwa Ranjan told a national magazine that the police had recovered a letter written by Ajay addressed to the spokesperson of the Maoists saying “either return the camera I gave you or pay me in place of that”. “The incriminating element is ‘I gave you’,” Ranjan asserted. He admitted that there was nothing that directly implicated Ajay but added that “under the law, one cannot have any contact or commerce with members of a banned organisation.”

The letter, written by Ajay, was recovered from the house of Malti Rao, the wife of Gudsa Husendi, the Maoists’ spokesperson, after the police claimed they “busted the naxalite racket” on January 21. Ajay was under the police scanner since then.

Ajay’s wife, Shobha, said that on January 22, three policemen came to their Ayyappa Nagar house at eight in the morning. They searched the house and took away Ajay’s computer and other belongings such as his camera manuals, research material and the master tapes of his films, which are still with the police. The police also showed him the letter recovered from Malti Rao.

Ajay admitted that he had written the letter but had also told the police the circumstances under which it had been drafted. Ajay told Frontline that in April 2004, while he was filming in Bastar in Chhattisgarh, an armed Maoist squad threatened and detained him. They had, then, taken away the camera from him. The letter, he said, was to tell them to return his camera as he could not afford another one to start working again. It is important to note that the Act under which Ajay is charged came into existence in April 2006, while the letter is supposed to have been written in 2004.

The film-maker at a public meeting of Adivasis. Recently, he made films on the lives of working women in Chhattisgarh, the police attack on Hero Honda workers in Haryana, and the work of Dr. Binayak Sen.

The police, however, are convinced that Ajay’s arrest is not linked to the 2004 incident. While emphasising this is a “totally different case”, they have overlooked a vital detail. The letter is undated. So while the police may want to believe Ajay wrote the letter much after the 2004 incident, they cannot negate the possibility that it was written as a sequel to the incident that took place two years before the CSPSA came into force.

But none of this counts as a slip-up for the police. Running contrary to the very spirit of fundamental rights, the CSPSA authorises the police to arrest anyone with political leanings or associations that question state policies. Ajay, a State executive member of the PUCL, is the second PUCL member to be arrested. The first, famously, was Dr. Binayak Sen, who was arrested on May 14, 2007.

Ajay and Shobha live with their 20-month-old son in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. Ajay grew up in a joint family that migrated from Kerala. His uncle came to Bhilai in 1959 to set up a tea shop near the steel plant. Eventually, Ajay had to leave school and work.

A chance encounter with Jonathan Parry, the well known anthropologist from the London School of Economics who was in Bhilai for a research project, was the turning point in Ajay’s life. He became Parry’s research assistant and developed a keen interest in the history and life of Chhattisgarhi people.

After learning basic film-making skills, Ajay and Shobha made films about social issues and over the years acquired a camera, microphones, cables and an editing computer. Ajay’s concerns led him to becoming a member of the All India Youth Federation, the wing of the Communist Party of India (CPI), and the State convener of the Campaign Against Child Labour.

The couple later opened a school for 25 poor girls in a slum cluster of Bhilai. Meanwhile, in his documentaries, Ajay began exploring the issues of migration and human rights. He became a voluntary member of the PUCL.

His recent films, made before he was arrested, were about the March 8 Women’s Day celebrations and the lives of working women in Chhattisgarh, the police attack on Hero Honda workers in Gurgaon in Haryana, and on the work of Dr. Binayak Sen. Ajay was also a strong opponent of Salwa Judum, the state-run programme to counter Maoists in Chhattisgarh. Salwa Judum has been criticised by many political and civil society organisations for violating human rights through its alleged state-sponsored violence.

Draconian definition

Ajay is still an accused under Section 124(A) of the IPC and under the CSPSA. According to Vrinda Grover, a lawyer, the definition of the Act and the section suggests that if the state finds the views of anybody – film-makers, journalists, writers, actors, academics, social activists – even mildly critical of the government, they can be targeted. “Such acts create a situation where the police will have to do less investigation and even a person with a tendency to interfere with the personnel of the state can be booked under the law,” she said.

A debate on the utility of the draconian laws enforced in the name of “protecting” the Indian state is long overdue. Proponents of these laws argue that the country is in the grip of multiple insurgencies seeking to dismember it and is the target of both indigenous and global terrorist networks.

Most civil society groups agree that terrorism in all its forms must be resolutely countered, but they point out that the means employed by constitutional democracies must not violate the core rights and freedoms that form the bedrock of civilised society.

why the communists oppose the nuclear deal?-reason in this report

Waiting traps

R. RAMACHANDRAN
in New Delhi

The shift to an import-led nuclear programme would make India vulnerable to the vagaries of the global market.

PHILIPPE WOJAZER, POOL/AP

At the Elysee Palace in Paris, in the presence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Nicolas Sarkozy, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (right) and Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar sign an accord on September 30 to enable French companies to sell civilian nuclear technology to India.

THE signing of the India-United States Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, or the 123 Agreement, on October 10 by Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice marks the final step in a paradigm shift in the development of nuclear energy in the country.

From the hitherto strongly self-reliant and indigenous approach, the Indian government is seeking to increase the generation of nuclear power by following an import-led growth path, notwithstanding the constraints and vulnerabilities that characterise such an approach as well as the realignments – geopolitical, strategic and scientific – that the country would be forced to make.

In particular, the signing signals the opening of the door to nuclear imports from the U.S. after 34 years. India’s nuclear power programme kicked off with an India-U.S. bilateral agreement in 1963 to set up two 160 MWe nuclear power plants (NPPs) at Tarapur, Maharashtra, but the cooperation ended abruptly following India’s Pokhran-I test in 1974. It led to the stoppage of fuel supplies to Tarapur and the emergence of a regime of controls on the export of nuclear technology and goods to non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), such as India.

Even though a self-reliant approach ultimately to nuclear technology development was part of Homi J. Bhabha’s vision, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was forced to take to this route quicker than envisaged. In retrospect, it proved to be highly beneficial for the DAE and the country. Now this approach is being marginalised by a growing strategic alliance with the U.S. and the consequent Manmohan Singh-George Bush joint statement of July 18, 2005, of which civil nuclear cooperation has become the totem pole.

From the limited perspective of the import of additional nuclear power generation capacity, the DAE seems to be far from clear about the extent of imports it envisages in the years to come. A figure of importing 20,000 MWe by 2020 is quoted often, particularly in the documents of the Planning Commission and in the statements of the Prime Minister. However, in recent times, the DAE has even begun talking of importing 40,000 MWe by 2020.

Even before the possibility emerged of importing from around the world, the DAE had set itself a target of 20,000 MWe by 2020, which included 8,000 MWe on the basis of the hope that Russia may supply 6,000 MWe in addition to the 2,000 MWe currently being installed at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu.

Either of the two revised import scenarios that have been articulated in the wake of the impending possibility of global nuclear commerce with India would imply that the Indian nuclear energy programme would be driven predominantly by Light Water Reactors (LWRs) based on (low) enriched uranium (LEU) instead of the natural uranium-based Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR), which have been its mainstay.

The Indian programme would then become highly vulnerable to the vagaries of the global nuclear market, in terms of capital cost (which at about $2 million/MWe is already much higher than in the case of PHWRs), uranium cost (which has escalated rapidly in recent times) and disruptions in supplies. All these factors are highly sensitive to changes in global geopolitics and the non-proliferation order set by the NPT and related controls on nuclear transfer as dictated by the guidelines of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

India has been allowed to do nuclear commerce by an amendment to the NSG Guidelines (Frontline, October 10).

The crossing of this hurdle had, in principle, laid the premise for India to engage in nuclear trade with countries such as Russia, France and Japan. Trade with the U.S., the prime mover of the NSG waiver, could begin only after the U.S. Congress approved the 123 Agreement.

Of course, there seems to have been a tacit agreement between the two governments that India would not talk to other suppliers before the agreement was approved. Now that this has also happened, it enables an ostensible “level playing field” to potential suppliers. (The 123 Agreement enters into force after the exchange of appropriate diplomatic notes between India and the U.S. as required under Article 16(1) of the Agreement.)

Of course, having given a written assurance on September 10 that the Government of India intended to source a minimum of 10,000 MWe from U.S. nuclear energy firms “on the basis of mutually acceptable technical and commercial terms and conditions”, India could not have negotiated with others.

One could argue that the caveat in quotes amounts to not giving a firm commitment. But the manner in which the U.S. pushed the sale of its Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to China in 2006 despite similar financial terms from Russian and French suppliers, not to mention their better technologies, is evidence enough that the U.S. could resort to similar tactics here as well (The Hindu, January 26, 2007).

More pertinently, while the government may perceive the NSG waiver to be “clean and unconditional”, the contours of global nuclear trade with India will in all likelihood be determined by the parameters set by the 123 Agreement. These are quite constraining, notwithstanding the counter-spins being given by the government and the bulk of the media.

Even though India has to enter into bilateral agreements with France and Russia, the NSG waiver provision of consultations among NSG members and the provisions in the Hyde Act as well as the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act of October 8, 2008 – the RosLiehtinen-Berman-Lugar Act – seem to ensure that other potential suppliers too played by the rules set by the U.S. (The RBL Act signifies Congress’ formal approval of the 123 Agreement.)

“This is an agreement…,” remarked Pranab Mukherjee at the signing ceremony, “[that] reflects a careful balance of rights and obligations [of the two countries]. The agreement has been passed by the U.S. Congress without any amendments. Its provisions are now legally binding on both sides once the Agreement enters into force. We look forward to working with U.S. companies on the commercial steps that will follow to implement this landmark agreement.”

In his remarks to the press soon after, he reiterated these points and added, “We intend to implement this agreement in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law and I am confident that the U.S. will also do the same” (emphasis added).

The Minister’s remarks on the legally binding nature of the agreement and its implementation in accordance with the Vienna Convention are a consequence of President Bush’s remarks in his letter to Congress while transmitting the Agreement (and the associated documents as required by the Hyde Act) on September 10. In that, with regard to fuel supply assurances, he had said (Frontline, October 10): “[T]he agreement records certain political commitments…. The text of the agreement does not transform these political commitments into legally binding commitments because the agreement, like other U.S. agreements of this type, is intended as a framework agreement.”

These remarks had led to a counter-statement on September 12 from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which said: “The rights and obligations of both India and the U.S. are clearly spelt out in the terms and provisions of the 123 Agreement. Once this Inter-Governmental Agreement enters into force, the Agreement would become a legal document in accordance with well-recognised principles of international law and the Law of Treaties [the Vienna Convention].”

This war of words continued when Bush, while signing the RBL Bill into law, said: “The Bill I sign today… establishes the legal framework for [the] agreement to come into effect. The Bill makes clear that our agreement with India is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and other elements of U.S. law…. The legislation makes no changes to the terms of the 123 Agreement…. The legislation does not change the fuel supply commitments that the U.S… has made to… India…. The agreement also grants India ‘advance consent to reprocessing’, which will be brought into effect upon the conclusion of arrangements and procedures for a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards” (emphasis added).

Differing interpretations

MANISH SWARUP/AP

At a protest against the nuclear deal, in New Delhi on September 25.

The government of India believes that cooperation will be governed by the provisions of the 123 Agreement only and that the fuel supply assurances given therein imply that the U.S. is legally bound to provide fuel or help India create a strategic fuel reserve for the lifetime of the U.S.-supplied reactors. Similarly, it believes that the “reprocessing consent” given in the agreement amounts to upfront grant of reprocessing rights.

But the U.S.’ interpretation of the agreement has been greatly at variance with India’s, and Bush’s remarks do not in any way allay India’s apprehensions, contrary to some commentaries in the media.

If the Hyde Act provided the basis for the U.S. perspective on the agreement, the RBL Act not only reinforced those provisions but also added new ones, especially towards harmonising the norms of trade with other NSG members. The RBL Act is thus just ‘Hyde Plus Act’.

In principle, since Congress was required to waive the usual consultation period of 30 consecutive legislative days for its approval as a simple privileged resolution, amendments could also have been brought in to the RBL Bill to alter the terms of the agreement. Because of the waiving off of the consultation period, its approval was no longer possible as a privileged resolution and this allowed for amendments.

Indeed, Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman had together mooted an amendment, which mandated certain specific U.S. actions in the event of an Indian nuclear test. This would have led to India rejecting the agreement.

But the U.S. administration, in its bid to ensure passage of the agreement under the current regime itself, ensured that the amendment was turned down.

In a statement of ‘Administration Policy’ on October 1, the Executive Office of the President said: “The Administration strongly urges swift passage by the Senate of H.R. 7081 [the RBL Bill], without amendment…. The Administration strongly opposes the amendment to H.R. 7081 offered by Senators Dorgan and Bingaman…. The proposed amendment would inject rigid and burdensome mandates into a statutory scheme (in the AEA) already equipped to address the unanticipated circumstance of India not adhering to the nuclear testing moratorium that it affirmed to the U.S. in 2005 and reiterated to the broader international community as recently as September 5, 2008. Accordingly, the Administration considers this amendment to be unnecessary and potentially harmful to the success of U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative…. Congress and the Administration have carefully addressed testing concerns in the Hyde Act, the U.S.-India 123 Agreement and the testimonies of Administration officials.”

Indeed, at the hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 18, Under Secretary of Political Affairs William Burns and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John C. Rood testified quoting Condoleezza Rice’s statement of April 5, 2006: “We have been very clear with the Indians… should India test, as it has agreed not to do… the deal, from our point of view, would at that point be off.”

The RBL Act (Section 101(b)) states: “The agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the AEA of 1954, the Henry J. Hyde… Act of 2006… and any other applicable U.S. law….” Significantly, Section 102 (a) notes the following, serving a reminder as it were to the administration to adhere to the statements and clarifications it made to Congress in various hearings and documents submitted to it. “Congress declares that it is the understanding of the U.S. that the provisions of the… [123] Agreement have the meanings conveyed in the authoritative representations provided by the President and his representatives to Congress and its committees prior to September 20, 2008, regarding the meaning and legal effect of the Agreement.”

Incidentally, the Indian government has been dismissive of these, saying that these are not reflected in the 123 Agreement, the basic document that governs the cooperation, and are hence irrelevant.

Fuel supply assurances

With regard to Bush’s statement that fuel supply assurances in the agreement are only political commitments that are not legally binding, the following testimonies of Burns and Rood are revealing. Burns stated: “As the President made clear in the transmittal letter, they are political commitments… in the sense that we are determined to help India to try to ensure a reasonable steady supply of fuel and should disruptions arise, for example, [owing to] trade disputes, [when] a commercial firm fails to meet its requirements, then we are firmly determined to… meet those requirements to the fullest extent consistent with U.S. law. And so any President would be bound by U.S. law and I believe that the Indians understand the clarity of our position.”

Rood stated: “[T]he 123 Agreement provides a legal framework. It’s an enabling piece of agreement…. It does not compel American firms, for instance, to sell a given product to India… [I]t is not a government activity to produce nuclear fuel; it’s a commercial activity in the U.S. and we in the U.S. government could not legally compel American firms to provide fuel to India if they did not wish to do so.”

He further clarified with regard to the Indian interpretation that the U.S. would help India procure fuel from elsewhere if the U.S. terminated its supplies: “It would be inconsistent with a President’s decision to terminate U.S. supply… to then seek the supply from other countries…”

Section 102(b)(1) and (2) of the RBL Act reiterate the provisions in Section 103(a)(6) and (b)(10) respectively of the Hyde Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 102(b) states: “In the event that nuclear transfers to India are suspended or terminated… it is the policy of the United States to seek to prevent the transfer to India of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source.”

Subsection (2) states: “[A]ny nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to… India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements.”

While there is a clear and obvious interpretation of the above sentence, the Indian government maintains that, since “reasonable operating requirements” has not been defined, it can be interpreted to mean lifetime fuel reserves. Clearly, the Indian government should be more realistic than to make such sweeping statements that do not make sense and defy logic.

Significantly, the RBL Act also requires the President to submit as part of the Implementation and Compliance Report as required by Section 103(g)(2) of the Hyde Act, a listing of “any U.S. efforts to help India develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel as called for in Article 2(2)(e) of the Agreement”, of “any U.S. efforts to fulfil the political commitments made in Article 5(6) of the Agreement [concerning fuel supply assurance]” and of “any negotiations that have occurred or are ongoing under Article 6(iii) of the Agreement [concerning reprocessing of U.S. origin or U.S. obligated fuel].”

Reprocessing rights

As regards reprocessing rights, which come into effect only after arrangements and procedures are negotiated and approved by Congress, the RBL Act (Section 201(c)) says that the subsequent arrangements and procedures will not take effect “if Congress adopts [consistent with the requirement of 130 g.(2) of the AEA and the RBL Act], and there is enacted, a joint resolution stating in substance that Congress does not favour such subsequent arrangement.”

In effect, this only reiterates what has been commented upon in these columns as well as by the Left parties that there is no upfront grant of permanent right to reprocess spent fuel of U.S. origin, contrary to what the government has repeatedly sought to portray.

In addition, through this Act, Congress has sought a congruence of measures by other potential suppliers with the “subsequent arrangements and procedures” of the U.S. Section 201(b)(1)(C) requires the President to transmit to the appropriate congressional committees “a certification that the U.S. will pursue efforts to ensure that any other nation that permits India to reprocess or otherwise alter in form or content nuclear material… requires India to do so under similar arrangements and procedures.”

This, essentially, would amount to other suppliers, such as France and Russia, also being forced to allow reprocessing only in a dedicated facility, besides following other procedures with regard to safeguards and environmental and physical protection of material that pass through such a facility. If the U.S. could actually enforce this on all the potential suppliers, the implication of this could be serious. That is, India cannot begin commercial negotiations with any supplier – French, Russian or American – before it builds a reprocessing facility and obtains reprocessing rights. Reprocessing remains central to the Indian nuclear programme, which relies on the breeder route, notwithstanding its shift towards imported nuclear power.

In this context, it would be of interest to know what India has negotiated with France in terms of reprocessing rights. For some inexplicable reason both countries have kept the agreement under wraps after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed it in Paris on September 30.

According to one news report, France has agreed to have Indian spent fuel shipped back to France for reprocessing, as in the case of Japan. Besides problems of logistics, the shipping cost would increase significantly the operating costs and hence the tariff on electricity generated.

Through a specific policy directive to the administration, the RBL Act seeks to restrict the transfer of Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technologies. It has been India’s hope that even if U.S. policy did not allow such transfer, it could procure these from sources such as Russia and France. Section 204(a) states that before entry into force “the President shall certify to the appropriate congressional committees that it is the policy of the U.S. to work with the members of the NSG, individually and collectively, to agree to further restrict transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel” (emphasis added).

Indeed, Rice had made a “personal commitment” to House Representative Howard Berman in September that at the November meeting of the NSG the U.S. would give the highest priority to reaching a decision to seek limits on the export of ENR technologies to countries that were not signatories to the NPT. Neither the NSG Guidelines per se nor the India-specific waiver restricts such transfers except for requiring that exporters “exercise prudence”. However, such a certification, as required by the Act, is yet to be made. Therefore, even though the agreement has been signed by the two countries, it is yet to take effect.

In addition, the Act (Section 104(1) and (2)) also requires that the U.S. can issue licences for nuclear transfers pursuant to this agreement only after the India-specific Safeguards Agreement concluded between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on July 7 has entered into force and India has filed a declaration of facilities to be brought under safeguards that is not inconsistent with India’s civil-military Separation Plan of May 11, 2006 (“taking into account the later initiation of safeguards than was anticipated”).

Section 204(c) further requires the President to submit not later than six months of the enactment of the RBL Act, and every six months thereafter, a report on the efforts by the U.S. towards this policy on ENR technologies. It is not clear if these have happened.

Clearly, India’s perceptions of what its rights and obligations are under the 123 Agreement belong in the realm of imagination or deliberate posturing to ward off severe criticism at home. But congressional testimonies, the U.S. Acts as well as documents have repeatedly proved them wrong. Even if one went strictly by the premise that the 123 Agreement alone is the legal document that India will abide by and that alone will govern the nuclear trade and cooperation, Article 2(1) of the agreement states clearly that each party will implement the agreement “in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations and licence requirements….”

Therefore, it is simply illogical to maintain ad nauseum that the provisions of internal laws of the U.S. are of no concern to India and what matters is the text of the 123 Agreement. It is that very text which implies that all the restrictive provisions of the AEA, the Hyde Act, the RBL Act and any other applicable U.S. law will have a bearing on India’s nuclear trade with the U.S., and probably with others as well via the Hyde and RBL Acts. Not acknowledging this would be akin to keeping an ostrich-like posture.