8/2/2019 17182

1/5

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 3, 2012 vol xlviI no 9 13

difference seems to have cropped up

among the partys top echelons in West

Bengal about the industrial policy that was

followed by the CPI(M) when in power.

Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Nirupam Sen

and the bulk of the state leadership

maintain that there was nothing wrong

in inviting the Tatas to Singur, or theSalim group to Nandigram. They believe

that it was the administrative and organi-

sational failure in convincing the people

that led to the partys defeat. But Abdur

Rejjak Mollah, a seniorCPI(M) leader who

was a minister in the erstwhile Left Front

government, has now publicly chal-

lenged this basic policy of industrialisa-

tion, and blamed it for adversely affect-

ing the interests of the peasantry who,

as a result, deserted the party. Lashing

out at the pro-corporate sector bias in

his party-led governments industrialisa-tion policy, Mollah says that the CPI(M)

should have strictly controlled the pat-

tern and modes of investment by the

corporate honchos so that the interests of

the rural poor were protected. In his

words: If the party has to survive, my

slogan is: CPI(M), go back to the Bagdi-

para (the locality of the depressed caste

of poor Bagdi agricultural labourers)

(Bartaman, 7 January 2012). But this is a

rather tall order for a party whose

present leaders and cadres have been

domesticated for years within the cor-rupt and comfortable home of electoral

politics, and will nd it difcult today to

move out to adopt the old communist

practice of living among the poor to

build up a mass base.

War and Peace in Iran

Abbas Goya

As the war propaganda against

the Islamic Republic of Iran by

the western bloc led by the United

States and Israel increases in

intensity, it only helps strengthen

the reactionary regime ruling

Iran which uses this to undermine

the ongoing revolution of theIranian people against the Islamic

Republic. The peace-loving people

of the world, who want to end

this dangerous war-mongering,

should not fall into the trap

of supporting the reactionary

Islamic Republic which has

oppressed its own people for 33

years, but should side with the

people of Iran in their struggle

against both reactionary poles.

The conict escalation between

western governments and the

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is

unprecedented. People in different parts

of the world rightly want to do some-

thing about it. In order to take the right

position, a short analysis of the situation

is necessary.

Two Reactionary PolesLet us rst look at the track record of

the two reactionary camps involved in

this conict.

At one pole, there stands the most enormous

machinery of state terrorism and international

intimidation and blackmail. This camp

includes the American government and rul-

ing elite, the only force, which has used nu-

clear bombs against people, reducing hun-

dreds of thousands of innocent and unsus-

pecting people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

into ashes within seconds. A state that

slaughtered millions in Vietnam and razedand ruined their country for many years by

chemical bombardments. It includes NATO

and coalitions of Western governments who

from Iraq to Yugoslavia have destroyed

peoples homes, schools and hospitals and

have taken ransom the bread and medicine

of millions of children. It includes the Israeli

bourgeoisie and state. They occupy, seize,

slaughter and deprive. They bomb and shell

refugee camps and shoot scared ten-year-

old children taking shelter in their fathers

arms and at school gates. From Hiroshima

and Vietnam to Grenada and Iraq, from

the killing elds in Indonesia and Chile tothe slaughterhouses of Palestine, the track

record of this international pole of state

terrorism and imperialist intimidation is

obvious and irrefutable for all the world to

see (Hekmat 2001).

At the opposing pole, there stands the

IRI, the stronghold of Islamic terrorism

and the reactionary and vile political Is-

lam. This force that was once created

and nurtured by the United States (US)

and the west themselves during the cold

war as a means of organising indigenous

reaction against the left in Iran have

now become an active pole of internation-

al terrorism and one contender in the

bourgeois power struggle in west Asia.

The Islamic Republic of Irans resume

includes a wide range of barbarity, fromstate and state-sponsored killings in Iran

to a war waged against the whole popu-

lation of Iran for 33 years, from the crea-

tion of a miserable life through extreme

poverty and exploitation to gender-

apartheid, child abuse, and other racist

and homophobic policies, from the

bloody suppression of political and intel-

lectual opponents, to imposing reaction-

ary laws on people, particularly women,

from mutilations and stoning, to public

executions; all through the imposition of

political Islam. These are the highlights

in the track record of these reactionaries.

The recent threats of war, which has

caused a growing concern among the

people of Iran, the region and the world,

are occurring in the context of the Israeli

governments backlash in domestic and

regional policies, the political tendencies

of some factions within the American

and British administrations, and the

circumstances and developments crea-ted by revolutions in west Asia. So far,

the war threats and propaganda have

Abbas Goya (abbasgoya@yahoo.com) is an

Iranian activist who lives outside Iran andis involved with political movements for the

overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

8/2/2019 17182

2/5

COMMENTARY

march 3, 2012 vol xlviI no 9 EPW Economic & Political Weekly14

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE(For Gujarat and Rajasthan)

Sardar Patel University, Opp. : Nandalaya Haveli,Vallabh Vidyanagar 388 120. Dist.: Anand, Gujarat.

Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, a leading research organization, sponsored bythe Ministry of Agriculture, GoI and working as an Associate Institute of Sardar Patel University for thepast 50 years invites applications for the post of Director:

Pay Scale: Rs.37400-67000 + Gr. Pay Rs.10000.

Qualifcations: Ph.D with higher second class Master Degree in Agriculture Economics / Rural Economics/Rural Development / Economics and published work of established merit.

Experience: Minimum 10 years experience in postgraduate teaching / research in university / govt./reputed organizations preferably in agricultural and allied sector.

Age Limit: 55 years.

Benefts: D.A, C.P.F, Medical, H.R.A. Gratuity etc.

Prescribed application form available from the Centres Ofce (downloadable from www.spuvvn.edu) onpayment of Rs. 250/-by cash or by M.O./D.D. in favour of Agro-Economic Research Centre payableat Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand. Duly lled applications (with DD for downloaded) must reach toDy. Director on or before 02.04.2012. Candidates who have applied earlier need not apply again.

Dy.Director & I/C AERC

beneted the most reactionary forces in

Israel, the west, west Asia and in Iran.

One of the consequences has been the

activation of religious-nationalist forces,

guardians of the Islamic system in the

opposition of the Islamic regime and the

escalation of a nationalist defence of the

regime from the right-wing opposition.Thus, we should not only unequivo-

cally condemn any military provocation

and action from both reactionary poles

of this confrontation, but should also

stand rmly against any direct or indi-

rect defence of the Islamic regime or any

subduing of the struggle for overthrowing

this regime on the pretext of war threats

and war. Let us carefully consider the

various aspects of the claimed disputes.

The Nuclear Programme

In March 2010, Zbigniew Brzezinski, an

adviser to Obamas administration, said

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

(Weinstein 2010). It indicates that the US

does not have a fundamental issue with

a nuclear Iran. The nuclear programme

is therefore not the underlying cause of

the conict. While there are strong indi-

cations that the IRI is making an atomic

bomb, the people in Iran not only never

approved any nuclear programme, be it

for energy or bomb, but the workers

explicitly expressed their opposition to

any nuclear programme (Hoft 2007).The US administration is certainly no

judge on this matter, as it is the only gov-

ernment that has ever used the atomic

bomb and US governments have been

opposed by the anti-nuclear movement

for decades.

Where should humanity stand on this

issue? If the US Three Mile Accident

(1979), the Russian Chernobyl (1986),

and Japanese Fukushima (2011) disas-

ters were not enough, the current radio-

active tritium leaks at 48 nuclear sites in

the US is yet another proof that nuclear

energy is harmful.A fundamental stand

on this regard is to be against the pro-

duction, storage, and use of any kind of

nuclear weapons and energy by any

state, including Iran. We need to be

against all nuclear programmes every-

where. Period!

Who Benets from a War?

Rephrasing Eugene Debs, in all history

of the world, we, the 99%, have never

declared war against another country.

Wars have always been declared by thestatesmen for the benet of the 1% in the

involved countries. That is why no govern-

ment would ever hold a referendum on

whether to wage a war or not against

another country since people will surely

reject it. People know that they will be

sacriced for the benets of the 1%,

disguised under the benet of nation

and country.

As claimed, bombing Iran is supposedly

not a full-scale assault with the intention

of toppling the ruling regime, as op-

posed to Iraq and Afghanistan cases. It is

supposedly to be of the same scale that

Israel committed against Syria in 2007

and against Iraq in 1981. However, nei-

ther the IRI is the same regime as that of

Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad nor

8/2/2019 17182

3/5

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 3, 2012 vol xlviI no 9 15

in either of Iraq or Syria was a revolution

against a regime present at the time of

the bombings. The US and Israel claim

that they contemplate bombing to stop

the IRI from having access to nuclear

weapons. However, as has often been

pointed out, such a bombing will inevi-

tably turn into a large-scale war. Thequestion then is, who benets from it?

It is obvious that any military action

by the Israeli government against the

Islamic Republic will benet the most

reactionary currents in Israel and the

west, on the one hand, and the forces of

political Islam such as Hamas, Hezbollah,

the Syrian government, and the IRI on

the other. It would prolong the life time

of all these declining currents. Undoubt-

edly, the only loser of such an action

would be the people whether in Israel,

Palestine, Syria or in Iran. In addition to

the tragic human costs and destruction of

the environment, such a war will milita-

rise the political climate, which in turn

will harm the peoples struggle for over-

throwing the Islamic regime in Iran, the

regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria, and

the peoples movement for social justice

in Israel.

Consequences of Bombing IranIt will, rst of all, cause a humanitarian

catastrophe which, in turn, will weaken the

focus of the anti-IRI movement in Iran.

Second it will give the IRI a golden oppor-

tunity to blame a foreign enemy as the

main threat to Iran and hence, it will allow

the IRI to crack down on the opposition

on a scale we have not seen since the

1980s. Further, starting a war against Iran

will unite the regime, even if temporarily,

while it will split the grass-roots opposi-

tion to the IRI by the poison of national-

ism. The IRI will play the victim role in

the eye of the international pro-Palestin-

ian/general human right forces. Finally

and most ironically, the IRI will denitely

speed up its attempt for developing

nuclear weapons even more aggressively.

In short, bombing Iran will strengthen

the IRI to the point that nothing can stop

it from deploying nuclear weapons in its

arsenal. The only thing that such bomb-

ing will achieve is to eliminate the onlyreal enemy of the IRI, that is, the revolu-

tion against the IRI.

With the decline of the power of politi-

cal Islam, whose backbone is the Islamic

regime, in the wake of the revolution of

2009 in Iran as well as the recent revo-

lutions in west Asia, the west is now

attempting to impose on the Islamic

regime a new balance of power. Sanc-

tions against the Central Bank of Iranand on oil purchase from the country,

cutting off its access to the global market

and hitting the ofcial economy along

with diplomatic pressures, war of words,

and war threats are ostensibly meant to

bring the Islamic regime to the negotiation

table from a weak position. However, the

manner of the present stand-off between

the west/Israel and Iran is benecial for

both sides of the conict. By constantly

yelling aloud the possibility of Israel

bombing Irans nuclear facilities in Qom,

Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr this

war propaganda allows the Islamic regime

to use this as an excuse for clamping down

on any internal opposition. It is pertinent

to remember that regimes in both Israel

and the IRI depend on having an external

enemy and constant threat of war alive

to sustain their own internal order and

carry on with their domestic oppressions.

Without the mentality of being threat-

ened by foreign hostility both theseregimes will have to face a great deal of

vital opposition from their own people!

Economic Sanction

Well-known to most of us through the

admission of then US secretary of state

Madeleine Albrights interview with CBS

60 minutes in 1996, hundreds of thou-

sands of children were killed during the

economic sanctions on Iraq, between

the rst and second Gulf Wars. The re-

cent sanctions on Iran have intensied

economic problems of the Islamic regime

to a degree where the collapse of the

entire economic system is possible. It is

obvious that the vast masses of workers

and people are the main victims of this

situation who are contending with sky-

rocketing ination, severe decrease of

purchasing power, dramatic fall of living

standards, non-payment of their low

wages, massive unemployment and social

consequences of this situation such asdrug abuse and prostitution. The con-

ict between western governments and

the Islamic regime and the sanctions

that have endangered social life in Iran

are a reactionary act of inhumanity. The

economic sanction must stop.

What Do the People of Iran Want?

This situation has intensied the conicts

within the Islamic regime in such a waythat a fear of peoples rise and a repetition

of the recent revolutions in the region

against the regime are daily expressed

by its leader. On the other hand, the peo-

ple of Iran, who drove the Islamic regime

to the verge of downfall by their revolu-

tion in 2009 and who follow with enthu-

siasm the revolutions of the people of

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria as well

as the Occupy movement, are not going

to be just passive onlookers and victims

of this scene. How we, the people of the

world, can play a role depends on how

we approach the matter. There are vari-

ous views on this conict which in the

end approach the political developments

in Iran in two distinctive ways and hence

end up with two clear stands.

The Pro 1%

In this approach events are looked at

from the perspective of the interstate

power struggle: which state(s) benetsfrom what actions. The questions raised

are: Why/what do the IRI, the US, the

Israeli, the Russian, the Chinese and

other governments do and seek? This

approach leads to either siding with the

IRI or the US bloc or some form of paci-

sm because it talks about Iran as an

equivalent to the IRI, and the IRI as Iran.

All of a sudden, there is no distinction

between the people of Iran and the gov-

ernment of Iran. Iran in this approach

consists of a united category comprising

opposing interests the IRI, the 1%, and

the deprived people of Iran, the 99%!

In addition to the Cuban, Venezuelan,

and Syrian governments and possibly

the North Korean (not to miss the maa

government of Russia and that state of

sweatshops, China) the supporters of

the IRI include that opposition which

does not have anything against the

Islamic Republic but only against parti-

cular individuals in power. This lattergroup, what one can call the pro-IRI

opposition, is also known as greens or

8/2/2019 17182

4/5

COMMENTARY

march 3, 2012 vol xlviI no 9 EPW Economic & Political Weekly16

the 2-Khordad. There is also a portion

of the anti-imperialist movement,

which should more accurately be termed

the anti-US movement, in the west. This

includes various sections of the anti-war

movements in the US and United King-

dom, various left-wing parties and groups

as well as prominent individuals like theformer British parliamentarian George

Galloway. A large number of them have

openly aligned with IRI President Mah-

moud Ahmadinejad, attending confer-

ences in Tehran organised by him,

meeting him in New York to express

solidarity in 2008 and writing letters

praising him.

This front appears to have no problem

with the war waged by the IRI on the

whole population of Iran for the past 33

years. It is only concerned about which

state will be the winner of the current

power struggle. This trend favours the

IRI and does not seek the abolishment of

nuclear weapons or programmes. Its only

concerns, it appears, are the US monopo-

ly over nukes. This strand did not even

once condemn the terror act of the IRI

against thousands upon thousands of the

IRI opposition including workers leaders,intellectuals and political oppositions. Yet

it shows inordinate concern over which

state assassinates which gure of the

other side. This approach is conditionally

against terrorism: Terrorism is only bad

if it occurs against IRI personnel.

The False Opposition

Apart from the western states led by the

US, British and French governments, the

supporters of the US bloc include the ultra

right opposition of the IRI and the ultra

right currents in the west. This trend

cares nothing about the people; it favours

economic sanctions no matter if it sub-

stantially adds to the misery of millions

of Iranians. It favours war; it justies the

massacres that will occur as a result of the

war under the pretext of its opposition to

the IRI. The western governments, the

US in particular, have tried to assemble agovernment in exile consisting of the

pro-western faction of the greens, the

traditional pro-west opposition, various

nationalists (including nationalist left),

and separatists.

In June 2010, this reactionary opposi-

tion met in Paris. This meeting was at-

tended by Mohsen Sazegara (the founder

of the notorious Iranian Revolutionary

Guards Qods Force and a leading gure

of the greens), Mohsen Makhmalbaf

(the lm-maker who is also a green

leader and a propagandist of the early

NEW Environment,TechnologyandDevelopment:

CriticalandSubversiveEssaysEssays from the Economic and Political Weekly

Edited By Rohan DSouza

Many political battles, policy initiatives, academic debates and our understanding of the world in general have

been shaped by the ideas that have developed around the concepts of environment, technology and development.

How do these concepts influence each other? How have they subverted established ideas and dogmas? How

have they developed over time and what are its varied meaning? This volume brings together writings across

disciplines, perspectives and ideologies that answer these questions, map the main conceptual lines and identify

the points where they converge and diverge.

The articles have appeared over the past four decades in the Economic and Political Weekly.

The introduction provides a brief chronological overview of the theoretical underpinnings that led to the emergence of the current notion of

environmental development. The chapters are selected and arranged in a non-linear manner that allows the reader to get a sense of the

wide-ranging debates.

The essays see the progress of technology in its political context and in relation to the social and environmental consequences it engenders.

They show how technology is meshed with politics as is environment with development, and how agriculture is woven with ecology. The

transfer of resources from the marginalised to the empowered groups and the crucial issue of spatial politics where space is constituted,assembled and forged by the economically powerful are also discussed. This volume will provoke, educate, stimulate and inform the lay reader

and specialist alike.

Authorsinclude T R Thankappan Achari Manshi Asher P A Azeez Jayanta Bandyopadhyay Charul Bharwada Philippe Cullet Mahasveta Devi SumitaGupta Gangopadhyay Hiren Gohain Rahul Gupta Barbara Harriss-White L C Jain Annu Jalais Ashwin Kumar John Kurien Vinay Mahajan Arjun Makhijani Dinesh Mohan Dipti Mukherji Chandrika Parmar K Krishna Prasad P P Nikhil Raj M V Ramana C H Hanumantha Rao Amulya Kumar N Reddy Sunali Rohra Vandana Shiva Nigel Singh Sudha Srivastava Geetam Tiwari G Vijay Gregor Meerganz von Medeazza Shiv Visvanathan Arundhuti Roy Choudhury.

Pp x + 394 ISBN 978-81-250-4506-9 2012 Rs 495

OrientBlackswanPvtLtdwww.orientblackswan.com

MumbaiChennai New Delhi Kolkata Bangalore Bhubaneshwar Ernakulam Guwahati Jaipur Lucknow Patna Chandigarh HyderabadContact:info@orientblackswan.com

8/2/2019 17182

5/5

COMMENTARY

Economic & Political Weekly EPW march 3, 2012 vol xlviI no 9 17

days of the IRI), Amir Hossein Jahanshahi

(a billionaire who lives in Paris and

London; the IRI accused him of being a

collaborator of the Israeli government),

Abdollah Mohtadi (a Kurdish, nationalist

left), Ali Reza Nourizadeh (a pro-IRI

opposition journalist) and Mehrangiz

Kar (a pro-IRI opposition gure).The main gure of this group,

Mohammad Reza Madhi, a supposedly

inuential general of the IRI who defected

and would supposedly arrange a coup

dtat against the present IRI leaders,

ended up being identied as an IRI inl-

trator! The whole project was dumped

once Madhi appeared on Iranian televi-

sion exposing the entire US/Israeli gov-

ernments attempt. In the latest effort in

this direction, the Olof Palme Inter-

national Center in Sweden arranged a

meeting of all these gures in order to

create an alternative for the IRI labelled

as the Unity for democracy in Iran.

This hidden meeting took place on 4 and

5 February 2012. Interestingly enough,

most of the participants at the Olof

Palme Center were identical to that of

the 2010 government in exile project.

This ultra right trend would do whatever

it takes, including acting as US puppets

or sleeping in bed with the US/Israeligovernments, in order to block a direct

move from the bottom, direct political

action by the masses in Iran.

Pacism, typically in form of peace

seeking, desires restoration of the power

balance between the conicting states

prior to moment of their heated war

propaganda. This view legitimises the

geopolitics of the states of the IRI and

the west and it fails to address the 33

years long, IRI imposed economic and

military war against a whole population.

Ultimately, all sides of this approach

care only about the winning side of

the 1%; either the 1% of Iran (the IRI), or

the 1% of the west (western states). At

best it seeks the restoration of the

balance of power between the various

1% powers.

The Pro 99%

The other approach is to view the events

from the perspective of the 99% in Iranregardless of what the 1% want and

do. This approach seeks freedom and

equality for all. This approach remains

staunchly opposed to the Islamic

Republic, seeks overthrow of the IRI via

revolution no matter which state seeks

what objective.

The 99% rmly stand against all

attempts to support the Islamic regime

on the pretext of economic sanctionsand war, or to legitimise the western gov-

ernments scenarios of a change from

above. Any military aggression, militari-

sation of society, plans of regime change

from above or support of the Islamic re-

gime on the pretext of war will be op-

posed by the 99% who consider the only

way to confront any prospect of war and

militarism to be the expansion of the

popular struggle against the Islamic

regime and its overthrow by the people

of Iran.

The focus of this perspective is on the

poverty imposed upon workers via direct

reign of the viciously capitalist Islamic

Republic or via its implementation of the

International Monetary Funds (IMF)

austerity plans. It is noteworthy that after

a set of recommendations by the IMF in

2010, the Islamic regime cut subsidies on

basic needs, such as food and gas, and

opened the economy further for capital.

The Islamic Republic implemented all ofthe IMFs recommendations to the point

that the IMF economists praised the IRI

as the rst country in the world that

could successfully implement all its

recommendations (Guillaume et al 2011).

The policies which were recommended

by the IMF were imposed and enforced

on the working class of Iran by means of

killings and imprisonment of workers,

intellectuals and political opponents.

Whatever the chances of a war between

the two poles of reaction, the real war of

the Islamic Republic on the working class

of Iran started 33 years ago and continues

uninterrupted. It has only intensied

with the implementation of the IMF

austerity recommendations.

In this context it is important to

remember the demands of the Iranian

people, its working class, which consti-

tutes the 99%. These include demands

for an end to the repressive political

system of the Islamic republic whichenforces an aggressive capitalist economy.

The people demand womens equality

and freedom of expression. They want

an end to brutal and inhuman practices

like public executions, stoning and muti-

lation and unconditional release of po-

litical prisoners. They want an end to

the economic sanctions, to the war prop-

aganda, to the Islamic Republics nuclear

programme as well as the war that theIRI wages on its working class. The 99%

want an end to their suppression by the

1%. This is true in Iran as much as any-

where else.

Simply put the 99% is determined to

end the reign of the IRI.

What Can the World Do?

If our politics has to side with the people

of Iran then we have to defend them

against both their oppressors. Thus the

true anti-war, anti-sanction, peace seek-

ing people who share the sentiments

of freedom and equality for the people

of Iran need to raise the slogan of

No War, No Economic Sanction; No

Nukes, No Islamic Republic. There is

no room for pacism, or abstract peace

in conditions where the people of Iran

suffer the oppression daily. We should

work to strengthen the popular strug-

gles against poverty and misery of the

Iranian people, we should demand animmediate end to economic sanctions,

an end to war propaganda, abolition of

Irans nuclear programme and the dip-

lomatic and political isolation of the

Islamic Republic.

In conclusion, a true peace, freedom

and equality in Iran is equivalent to

the overthrow of the Islamic regime by

a revolution.

References

Guillaume, Dominique, Roman Zytek and Moham-mad Reza Farzin (2011): Iran The Chroniclesof the Subsidy Reform, IMF Working Paper(WP/11/167), July, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11167.pdf, accessed on14 February 2012.

Hekmat, Mansoor (2001): The World after 11 Sep-tember, Part One: The War of Terrorists,http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/1990en.html, accessed on 14 February 2012.

Hoft, Jim (2007): Iranian Workers: Keep Your Stink-ing Nukes!, Gateway Pundit, 4 May, http://

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2007/05/iranian- workers-keep-your-stinking-nukes/, accessedon 14 February 2012.

Weinstein, Adam (2010): We Can Live With a Nu-

clear Iran: Brzezinski, Mother Jones, 30 March,http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/brzezinski-we-can-live-nuclear-iran-g8-summit-deterrence-obama, accessed on 14 February 2012.