By Saswat Pattanayak

Ironies in the post Soviet days surpass those that characterized it. Despite longueurs of economic progress that “Tsar Putin” has made an exhibition out of, it must appear to be ironical that every publication worth its name declares there is more poverty and less equality in Russia these days than they ever were during Soviet days.

But what’s even more satirical are the suggestions from the concerned quarters that see this as an essential problem of the formerly controlled economy, than as an obvious aftermath of the presently capitalistic one. Considering that the crisis is evident (and multiplying) after the collapse of communism, it should come as no uncommon sense to perceive the root of disarrays. And yet the more populist and political correct accusations are aimed at the former era than the present regime.

Well, that’s not such a surprising finding if we traverse back at the hundreds of thousands of myths that the private capital masters have spread over past few decades about the merits of capitalism. In such ways the myths have been reinforced that even the biggest apostles of capitalism would have to pause awhile.

Its over 15 years since the USSR dissolved in its political form, and yet the only path that its economy has taken for the majority of people is downwards. This, despite absence of any capricious elements in an otherwise compromised economy. Apart from a few oligarchs who have been prosecuted, the country has seen one of the more stable forms of capitalistic expansions by business interests. Despite talks of nationalization or renationalization, only sectors affected thus far have been oil and gas. International currencies, free market and prosperous middle classes are characterizing the country in its free-est market condition in its entire history.

And yet, inequalities of wealth among the population are greater. Poverty, unemployment, crime, and prostitution are way higher. Social security is nearly absent and “terrorism” is at the highest. The country is struggling even to hold bilateral talks, its Nato membership pleas challenged by its own people.

Kremlin is gaining notoriety for “getting rid” of its enemies: Murders of eminent people include journalists (Anna Politkovskaya), research scholars (Indologist Grigory Bondarevsky), scientists (Alexander Krasovsky and Viktor Frantzuzov), security service agents (Alexander Litvinenko), and top officers (Andrei Kozlov- vice president of Central Bank, and Alexander Plokhin, director of Foreign Trade Bank), to mention only a few.

Chechnya crisis, high corruption rate, growth of the Russian “Mafia”, racism by “skinheads”, ban on Communists to conduct parades are not the only features that characterize a fragmented country unable to celebrate its national and cultural diversity. According to the Reporters Without Borders, Russia ranks below many African countries in terms of its press freedom ranking, indeed out of 168 countries, its rank is 147 (worse than Mugabe’s Zimbabwe)! In terms of corruption, Russia is the top most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International’s global corruption reports. Lets not even bring up the controversial but almost accurate Amnesty International which maintains horrific databases.


“The Road Ahead”:
And yet, most economists suggest that even greater private investments hold the key for a country like Russia to gain a foothold. Putin has been acclaimed on one hand for raising the nationalist level among the people so as to take back the country to the days of Tsarist glory (implying the biggest feudal society in the contemporary times where private capitals will be concentrated in the hands of selected domestic business houses). This is the more popular choice considering the general anti-Americanism prevailing among the people and unduly being milked by the Americanized leaders of Europe themselves to further their political (read: democratic) ambitions.

And on the other hand, from the critics’ quarters, he has been advised to opt for greater concentration on capitalistic expansion so as to make way for a truly “free market” (implying the establishment of a neo-American society where money will engage people as a commodity, and take away the human elements that are needed for any progressive dissent).

The third front is, alas an alternative, least explored. While visiting Borders book store, I usually chuckle at the sections such as History and Government & Politics. Several racks of books are collected under different sub-headings for easy perusal. It is there that one understands how silently, and effectively the alternatives are purged. You will surely find subheadings such as “Russian History”, and “Russian Government”, but under parenthesis they have carefully typed out phrase: “Non-Soviet”.

Somewhere between Tsarist oppressions and Capitalistic expansions, the Soviet intentions are conveniently buried. And it’s most ironically absent in Putin’s Russia.

Tags: Saswat, USSR, Economics, Communism, Capitalism

A complete depiction of events that unfolded during 1917. In six parts. Original texts and artworks belong to Progress Publishers, Moscow.

Tags: Saswat, USSR, Communism, Cold War, History

By Saswat Pattanayak

"Yes, the celebration of May Day has truly been made official. It has been celebrated by the state. The might of the state was evident in many ways. But is it not intoxicating to think that the state, until recently our worst enemy, now belongs to us and has celebrated 1 May as its greatest festival?
And yet, take my word, if this festival had only been official, it would have produced nothing but coldness and emptiness.
But no, the popular masses, the navy, the Red Army all true working people put their efforts towards it. And we can therefore say that this festival of labour has never been so beautiful."

Extract from A. V. Lunacharsky's diary for 1 May 1918, describing the May Day festivities in Petrograd.



When some Australian workers in 1856 first decided to organize and celebrate a no-work day on May 1, they had no idea how much they deserved it. Hence, despite their intent of participating in the event just one time, the day gained such prominence, not out of a media publicity or government endorsement, but because of the growing needs of the times for the workers to assert themselves.

During those days, the average work hours per week was 70 hours! No wonder May 1 celebration touched the lives of millions and immediately followed the Americans. Early in 1886, the Chicago employers were filching away from their employed, the privilege recently unreasonable length than ten or eleven hours. Against this familiar device of the masters, many meetings of the men were held in Chicago in the earlier months of 1886. One of these meetings was called in the Haymarket, for the evening of May 4th. It was called by the anarchists. A special protest was to be made against the killing of seven unarmed workers a few days earlier, outside McCormick's premises, by Pinkerton detectives. The speeches of the Anarchists before this particular occasion had been of the "sound and fury" type. There had been talk of bombs and the like. (To-Day, Nov 1887).

Even before it, on May 1 that year, working men mobilized in support of the eight-hour workday in cities across the United States. According to New York Times of May 2, 1886, in Chicago, “one good-sized procession, one small one, two small meetings, some gatherings too feeble to be called meetings, and less than 30,000 laboring men taking a holiday, either willingly or unwillingly, represent the first day of the era in which, it has been declared, eight hours shall constitute a day's work and 10 hours' pay shall be gotten for eight hours' work. The red flag has bobbed up here and there, some incendiary speeches have been made.”

NYT reported that the furniture manufacturers of St. Louis formed an association and unanimously resolved to operate their factories on the eight hours per day system after that day, on a basis of eight hours' wages. All the plumbers in the city, 200 in number, quit work that morning. They made a demand of the bosses that they adopt the eight-hour system without decreasing their wages, beginning to-day. Similar reports were filed from Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Louisville, Washington, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Troy, Hartford, New-Haven, Boston And Portland.

Soon after, the Resolution introduced by Raymond Lavigne, International Socialist Congress, Paris, July 20, 1889 summed up the intent for a truly International Labor Day. The International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam calls upon all Social-Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace. The most effective way of demonstrating on May First is by stoppage of work. The Congress therefore makes it mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May First, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers.

And as Leon Trotsky put it in 1924, the fundamental May Day demands were threefold: the eight-hour working day, for which generations of the working class have fought, the international solidarity of workers and the struggle against militarism.

And the visions, demands and struggles associated with May Day continue to reverberate in the collective hope of the entire working class of the world as they move from one form of industrial society to another! Long live, May Day!

Tags: Saswat, Communism, History, USSR, Academic, Literature, USA

By Saswat Pattanayak

Exactly 21 years ago, Indira Gandhi was assassinated.

And as the war mongers have triumphed ever since, her character sketches are being redrawn.

Latest one is related to the Mitrokhin papers. Vasili Mitrokhin is no more, but the defected ghost continues to hunt the lesser politicians of India and even prompting some right wing nick pickers to demand that they want to see the Supreme Court inquire into the allegations. Apparently the press world over have taken uncanny interest in his work, claiming that he is the most credible source to speak on KGB.

Of course, the serious observers know that Mitrokhin is a disgraced KGB man. Even at the peak of Soviet era, he was being assigned to accompany the Soviet team to Olympic Games. In 1956, he was removed from any field work related to KGB after his mishandling of operational assignments. That was the reason why he was shifted from operational work to archives work and told that he would never be able to work on field again (this indicates his failure as a operative of any worth, and not again, being relegated to the job, not an archivist anyway to begin with or skilled with). Even as an archivist, he was known to be one who stole documents. Traveling (not escaping or anything) to Latvia, well after the era of communism was over in USSR, his first door was CIA. Even in 1992, CIA did not consider him credible and no one believed his fake documents. Clearly American intelligence agency which had outwitted KGB scores of times before leading to the demise of the communist state, was dismissive of this man.

Finally he found a buyer in M16, an agency which is less active than Indian RAW in the post-world war period. And he found a publisher too. So much ado about nothing.

The issues he espouses about India (that Indian politicians have taken money from KGB) are pretty stale and unimportant. Even if they were accurate, there is no reason why anyone in the Congress Party need to be ashamed. In the era of the Cold War, it is an open knowledge that India was on principle supportive of many Soviet stances than the American. The way his book has now snowballed into a major political controversy in India with the opposition BJP demanding that the government should come out with a white paper on the sources of funding of political parties from abroad and set up an inquiry by Supreme Court judge into the allegation contained in the records of the disgraced KGB official, it seems the right wing leaders of India are yet to mature.

Unless of course BJP and the family support what President Nixon and Henry Kissinger were speaking about Indians during the period. Of course during the 70's, the right wingers were all so glued to the Americanization. Decades later, what seems obnoxious must be sounding so just and sane to the right wingers in India.

Is the issue at hand something about money that the Soviet Union’s Ambassador in New Delhi from 1977 to 1983 Yuri Vorontsov has publicly declined? “It’s rubbish! Indira Gandhi or her Congress Party never took KGB money,” he said recently ridiculing the Mitrokhin Papers. He has even further logic:
“Gandhi and the Congress as the ruling party could have raised any amount of money through Indian business houses and were not in need of foreign funds. Yes, I know that the Communist Party received funds from the CPSU (Soviet Communist party) like any Communist Party of the world. It was never a secret for anyone. They (funds) were transferred through non-diplomatic channels, so I am not aware of any transactions,” Vorontsov said.

Or is the real issue about Indira Gandhi’s decision at that point: to support Soviet Union or to submit to the United States?

Here are excerpts from Gandhi’s letter to Nixon:

New Delhi, August 7, 1971.

It is not for us to object to the United States maintaining, as you, Mr. President, have put it, "a constructive relationship with Pakistan" so that the U.S. may "retain some influence in working with them towards important decisions to be made in that country." We have waited patiently and with restraint, hoping for a turn in the tide of events which the Government, Parliament and people of India could recognize as a step towards a political settlement.

I believe that the Government of the United States supports the view that the posting of U.N. observers on either side of the frontiers of India and East Bengal could solve the problem of the refugees. We regret that we do not see the situation in this light. India is an open democracy. We have a large diplomatic corps and many representatives of the world press. We have had visits of parliamentary delegations from various countries. All are free to travel and to visit the refugee camps. They see for themselves that although we are doing all we can for the refugees, life in the camps is one of deprivation and acute discomfort. Hence it is unrealistic to think that the presence of a group of U.N. observers could give any feeling of assurance to the evacuees when every day they see new evacuees pouring in with stories of atrocities. Would the League of Nations Observers have succeeded in persuading the refugees who fled from Hitler's tyranny to return even whilst the pogroms against the Jews and political opponents of Nazism continued unabated? In our view, the intentions of the U.N. Observers might be more credible if their efforts were directed at stopping the continuing outflow of these unfortunate people and at creating conditions which, to any reasonable person, would assure the safety of life and liberty of the refugee who wishes to return to East Bengal.

I should like to mention one other matter. Our Government was greatly embarrassed that soon after our Foreign Minister's return from his Washington visit and despite the statements made by Ambassador Keating in Bombay on April 16 and by the State Department's spokesman on April 15, 1971, came the news of fresh supplies of U.S. arms to Pakistan.

It was a sad chapter in the history of our subcontinent when the United States began to supply arms to Pakistan in 1954 and continued doing so up to 1965. These arms have been used against us, as indeed we feared they would be. And now these arms are being used against their own people whose only fault appears to be that they took seriously President Yahya Khan's promises to restore democracy.

In the midst of all the human tragedy, it is some relief to contemplate the voyage of the astronauts in the Apollo-15. These valiant men and the team of scientists supporting them represent man's eternal longing to break from the constraints of time and space. As I write this, the astronauts are heading homewards, back to our earth. We pray for their safety and success. Please accept, Mr. President, our warm felicitations.

I was glad to have your message regarding your initiative to normalise relations with the People's Republic of China. We have welcomed this move and we wish you well.


And here is what Nixon and Kissinger were upto:

President Nixon and Henry Kissinger met in the Oval Office of the White House on the morning of November 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon's conversation with Prime Minister Gandhi on the previous day. Kissinger's overall assessment was that “the Indians are bastards anyway. They are starting a war there. To them East Pakistan is no longer the issue. Now, I found it very interesting how she carried on to you yesterday about West Pakistan.” He felt, however, that Nixon had achieved his objective in the conversation: “While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too. She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war.” Kissinger judged that Gandhi had been thwarted in her objective: “She would rather have had you give her a cool reception so that she could say that she was really put upon.” Nixon agreed: “We really slobbered over the old witch.” Kissinger felt that on matters of substance, nothing of importance had been conceded: “You slobbered over her in things that did not matter, but in things that did matter, you didn't give her an inch.” Nixon and Kissinger agreed that in the upcoming conversation with Gandhi the approach to take was to be “a shade cooler” and allow her to do more to carry the conversation than had been the case in the initial conversation. (National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, White House Tapes, Recording of conversation between Nixon and Kissinger, November 5, 1971, 8:51-9:00 a.m., Oval Office, Conversation No. 615-4)

Now if there would have any reason for outrage, Indians very well have one. When will the BJP, keeping aside its hawkish mindset, get it straight.


Maybe this time. Here is the telephonic conversation between President Nixon (P) and Kissinger (K):


/1/ Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Kissinger Papers, Box 370, Telephone Conversations, Chronological File. No classification marking. The President vacationed in Key Biscayne, Florida, December 3-5; Kissinger was in Washington.

December 3, 1971, 10:45 a.m.

K: Two matters I want to raise. It appears that West Pakistan has attacked because situation in East collapsing. State wants to use it as a pretext not to put out statement/2/ at noon. I think it's more reason to cancel programs. State believes and I agree that we should take it to the Security Council once actions are confirmed. If a major war [develops] without going to the Security Council it would be a confession of poverty.

/2/ Reference is to a statement announcing the cut-off of military assistance to India.

P: Who will object?

K: India and the Soviet Union.

P: So we have to.

K: Apparently no one else will. Even the liberal papers are supporting that.

P: I am for that. We have to cut off arms aid to India. We should have done it earlier. Allow India bias.

K: Yes.

P: Sisco's part? He isn't pro-Indian. It's what they want below.

K: Sisco has no convictions. Liberal, [omission in the source text], socialist syndrome. The Indians will just add-

P: I have decided it and there is no appeal.

K: I also think-

P: I wrote it independently of anyone and I am surprised it hasn't been done.

K: It won't reach the UN tomorrow or late today. We shouldn't make a catastrophe of everything we have done and why Indian actions unjustified.

P: So West Pakistan giving trouble there.

K: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting.

P: They will have enough for a few days. It puts the Soviets on the spot.

K: I think I should give a brief note to the Russians so that they don't jump around about conversation yesterday and say we are going on your conversation with Gromyko./3/ A strong blast at their Vietnam friends and behavior on India. We are moving on our side but they are not doing enough on theirs.

P: On India certainly but on VN I wonder if it sounds hollow.

[Omitted here is discussion unrelated to South Asia.]

P: Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the bitch. Their [omission in the source text] and that but they have brought it on. We have to cut off arms. Why not? Because attacked by W. Pakistan. Tell them that when India talked about W. Pakistan attacking them it's like Russian claiming to be attacked by Finland.

K: They will do it or we will do it from Key Biscayne. It's a hell of a way but we can do it and I will get that message to the Soviets.

Tags: Saswat, India, USSR, USA, Cold War, Imperialism

Jacob the Liar (1974) is the film about a poor Jewish worker who overhears a radio broadcast about Russia’s march towards defeating Germany. The Nazi would not of course rest until they find out who among the Jews have been spreading the words. Jacob becomes such a source of hope for the Jewish workers that he says he has a radio in the Ghetto. And then when the troubles begin.

A film about exclusive media, official propaganda, mass hope for survival and subsequent defeat of dreams. The film made in East Germany, is a masterpiece about how we have withered with time. (this German movie is different from the more famous comedy made in the 90's in English by the same name)

Tags: Saswat, Film, War, USSR, Capitalism, Communism

By Saswat Pattanayak

Let’s revisit Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, the man who did the Capitalism proud. The only person whose accounts in form of two books, are the sacred texts so far to have been used by the West to attack the Soviet history.

He was a Cossack intellectual, meaning a Cossack elite.

Who is a Cossack? In the 15th century, the Cossack society was a loose federation of independent military units, entirely separate and sovereign.

The two states they represented, Cossacks of Zaporizhia and Don Cossack State had a unique warrior culture, whose main source of income was the pillaging their neighbors although they didn't shy from plundering other neighbors. They were famous also for their raids against the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman Empire, led by a Sultan was one of the mightiest empires in Europe, whose fight against the Russia in Crimean War was notable.

The Russians initially had used their advanced defense mechanisms and out-maneuvered the Ottomans using their Armenian allies within the empire. They of course subsequently persecuted the Armenians in a genocidal fashion. It was not until the Communist revolution in Russia that the Russian forces retreated, leading to Ottoman victory on this front.

Not only was he a Cossack intellectual who supported the interests of the elite section of the ruling regimes in the pre-revolution period, but his prerogative was in highlighting the glories of Tsarist period! In presenting alternatives to the Soviet regime, Solzhenitsyn tended to reject Western emphases on democracy and individual freedom and instead favored the formation of a benevolent authoritarian regime that would draw upon the resources of Russia's traditional Christian values.

Authoritarian traditional Christian rule!

In other words he represented the counter-revolutionary ethos that wanted Tsar regime back. For whom the communists were infidels. The primary resistance to the Holocaust is well known silence of the Vatican since Hitler was fighting Stalin and the Church wanted the ouster of Communism at any cost, even if it would mean the Jewish extermination. Solzhenitsyn of course was not in any way opposition to the Vatican’s silence. Far from it, at first notice, America’s silence over Jewish question was welcomed by him, a country he would make home for 20 years.

On the contrary, what had been provided in the USSR then? Lenin (and please…not Stalin) had while categorically espousing the interests of the revolutionary class of peasants and workers, had clearly stated, “confiscation of all properties”. Majority of people who were in spirits with the movement of course did allow for the confiscation to take place. Several countries in the world indeed went ahead for wealth distribution. Mythically Robin Hood still continues to do so.

But what was happening was contrary to everything Solzhenitsyn believed in. A purged Christianity was unacceptable to the largest groups of believers in the world. Solzhenitsyn became their voice. He helped them compare the Gulags with the Nazi Holocaust. Of course the plights of the Armenians, Africans-Americans, Japanese-Americans of those days also were excused. For the plights of the Jews in Germany, a supremacist country whom Soviet Union contributed the most in defeating, there were none among the Allies who would stand up. Solzhenitsyn remained blind to the reality out of his desire to overthrow the Communism and replace it with traditional Christian values. Apparently after he wrote a letter to Stalin, he was sent to the camp, which formed the base for two of his books: Gulag Archipelago and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. These books apparently rocked the world!

It led the media to focus on the new victims: the Gulago. Nazis were called even subtler than the Soviets! Of course contextualizing it, it will seem natural that they felt it the same way all along. One side Hitler supported by the Christians (yes the Catholics), whose common enemy of course was Communism. And on the other Stalin and the non-believers. And of course the Red Army famously defeating the White Army of the imperial Russia and nullifying every White Order.

Solzhenitsyn, unfazed by the divided ideologies, and possibly because of it, authored a fiction “One Day in the Life…”which was widely targeted for the American audience. Naturally! And the other book “Gulag ..” whose most compelling chapter was claimed to have been a recollection of incidents by fellow prisoner Georgi Tenno, who was invited by Solzhenitsyn to be the co-author. Tenno refused the offer.

And what happened to Solzhenitsyn at the labor camp which has been used by the western critics of communism to be of even more gruesome than the Nazi camps?

He was political prisoner after war years for 8 years, for his criticism of Soviet policies, and holding talks with religious forces. 8 years? Yes.

After that, the same draconic system produced a fine mathematics teacher of him and he began to write. Leading Soviet literary periodical Novy Mir ("New World") also published his short novel “One Day in the Life..” Soon after he could publish his works abroad thanks to the interests generated by this novel. In 1960’s he had several foreign publications of ambitious works including V kruge pervom (The First Circle). Rakovy korpus (1968; Cancer Ward) talked about his hospitalization and successful treatment for terminally diagnosed cancer during his forced exile in Kazakstan during the mid-1950s.

Something interesting happened in 1970. He was awarded Nobel Prize, but he did not go to receive it claiming that he shall not be allowed to re-enter the country. But at the same time, he was quite conveniently publishing his works abroad. He went on to publish a celebration of German military in Avgust 1914 (1971; August 1914), a historical novel treating Germany's crushing victory over Russia during World War I, the Battle of Tannenburg!

In December 1973 he published first part of Arkhipelag Gulag (The Gulag Archipelago) in Paris! The news circulated that he was arrested and was being tried for treason. According to his logic, the punishment should have been death! Like previously under Stalin, people believed millions were killed in the camps he was at. Only he was saved to tell the story?...like previously it was believed that he would be killed in exile in hospital. Cancer and he was cured? So that he will tell the story? And now what happens? On Feb. 12, 1974, he is charged. And the next day, on Feb 13, 1974, he is exiled? Where to and how long? Still unharmed by the most evil empire?

Sounds incredible? Well, in December he goes and gleefully received his Nobel Prize! In 1975, he produces another novel Lenin v Tsyurikhe: glavy (Lenin in Zurich: Chapters). He settles in the Unites States, especially aware that he was, of America’s role in the Holocaust. Of course he mentions nothing about America and Holocaust.

Then on, he surges forward. Two more series of Gulag comes up. He refuses to call it his landmark book. Instead says history of Russia as he was working on was. And safely returns to his country of dreams, the Christian Russia in 1994.

So much ado about Gulag!

Two things emerge in this discourse. History as we all have studied thus far, can be a very twisted text, and sometimes sacred at that. Leading us not to question the upfront issues. First, comparing Gulag with Nazi camps is horrendous. That’s missing the whole point, actually. The people who kept silent during Nazi extermination were among the people who were sent to the camp in Soviet Union. No logic of passivity can work if one advocates pacifism by claiming that we could allow the Hitler to go on mass murdering people on gas chambers by calling Jews, Negroes and Communists did not deserve to live. To such claims many world leaders did not openly oppose and the Vatican too remained stoic. All aided this process only because they were scared of the spectre of Communism.

We live today to reflect much of bogus that have been taught to us as sacred. We were told Columbus discovered America! That Native Americans were Christians. And that the religious leaders all pray for peace. That the greatest democracy was greatest democracy even when its presidents owned slaves. That color of the skin could determine the intelligence of human beings. That intelligence was to be measured by a Binet Scale. That Communists were out to destroy the world. And what if the Russians Came?

Secondly, what was Gulag? And why were people so shocked by it? And who were the people at the Gulag? Do people even talk if there are 100,000 people at the Gulags now, in 2005? What were they traditionally doing? What do they continue to do? Is the Church against the Gulags now? Or as they as stoic as they were in case of Jews? Are these people in Gulags not Jews now? Or are they the converts? One can read about them now and imagine, what a fateful twist in history is this.

Tags: Saswat, History, USSR, Cold War, Communism, Capitalism

By Saswat Pattanayak

Good riddance to bad rubbish…
Well almost. I don’t think we had a good riddance of this character at all. The notorious former Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, has died in exile in Saudi Arabia today.
And who saved him from being killed or lapidated (stoning one to death)? For someone who wiped out 400,000 people like a fascists, the media portrayed him as a buffoon and a cannibal!
Additional news came about how Soviet Union was the sole member in the UN security council to reject a motion to declare Uganda of committing human rights violation. And alongside, US and Britain even went ahead and denounced Amin and closed their embassies.
Well, between easy and difficult, the West chose the easy and cut-off all relations. As if the people in Uganda were the worse humans to deal with! As if it were all the faults of Ugandanians. So the solution was to oppose UN and impose sanctions and cut off business. So that the people suffer.
Suffer for doing what? For resenting against Amin of course!
How many countries can claim to have a leadership which is supported by the majority of its people, anyway? Worse, why should Amin had a place if not ably supported by some external forces. The blame went to the Reds, without any substantiation, except the UN vote which to me, sounds ridiculous, since any sanction is not good for the people of the country. Since the rulers don’t care, sanctions or no sanctions.

Here are some pointers (click here for an article by Steven Niven):

The United States' officially hostile stance obscured its ongoing support of Amin's regime. It continued to provide military helicopters and parts long after the US had claimed to have cut off aid and also provided "special police training" to high ranking officers in Amin's SRBPSU. In July 1979, the Washington Post quoted a CIA official's explanation for assisting the Ugandan secret police. His answer suggests that, like the other governments who assisted Amin, the US believed that it could control and manipulate him. "By training Amin's men," the CIA official remarked, "we were able to have some influence over Amin. It was also a possibility that we could go back to the trainees later for intelligence operations."

In December 1986, the New York Times reported that CIA operatives provided bombs, military equipment, and training to Amin in 1975, to assist him in subduing domestic unrest, in spite of congressional legislation forbidding such sales. The Times report, issued during the unfolding Iran-Contra scandal, noted that "there was no indication whether George [H.W] Bush, the director of Central Intelligence at the time, was aware of the operation." Throughout the 1970s, former CIA operatives funneled sophisticated surveillance equipment made by American companies to the Ugandan secret police. British companies — including the state-owned car manufacturer, British Leyland — likewise provided Amin with state-of-the-art surveillance and military equipment, even though the UK broke diplomatic relations with Uganda in 1976. Ironically, British trade with Uganda continued even though, as the Sunday Herald of Glasgow reported yesterday, Britain's Labour Government was at the same time considering assassinating Amin.

Saudi Arabia shielded one of the biggest anti-human institutions. How come nothing happened to this host country? Next logical question: Who shields the Saudis? Only answer: Of course we know!

Tags: Saswat, USSR, Capitalism, Imperialism, History, USA, Uganda

By Saswat Pattanayak

Russian Orientalist, Prof. Grigory Bondarevsky has been murdered in Moscow. Of course, he used to take special interest in the subversive role of Western intelligence agencies in the history of India, Iran and Arab countries.

And of course, after dissolution of the USSR, the systematic obliteration of the original researches have been started full force. Indeed, Bondarevsky is the 10th Russian scholar to have been killed over the past year (for example, in June, Alexander Krasovsky of the Academy of Sciences died following an armed burglary into his apartment, while in January Viktor Frantzuzov, deputy rector of the Moscow Institute of Chemical Technologies, was shot dead etc). And none of the murder mysteries have been solved yet.

In the Indian context, Prof. Bondarevsky was the honorary professor of the Meerut University and winner of the Jawaharlal Nehru International Prize as well as Padma Shri, one of the highest civilian awards. In the Soviet context, the most recent and unique research of his was regarding the Chechen struggle. In fact the attackers had not stolen anything from his apartment except a Chechnya-related research. The Russian interior ministry was quick to suggest the killers might have been members of the Russian Mafias.

Mafias work for whom and why? Who would benefit from the people’s researches on Islam and the West’s contribution in its militarization?

Well, Well!

Tags: USSR, Saswat, Communism, Capitalism, India, Academic