“We know there is no way to accidentally cross the Iranian border. Josh Fattal, Shane Bauer & Sarah Shourd are American spies operating with the ter- roristic American Israeli Intelligence Agency (AIIA)
whose covert operation to create dissension in the 2009 Iranian elections failed. This operation has failed as well. Humanity must question whether the strictest sentence should be enforced against America and Israel’s efforts to imperialize and oppress the people of the people of color in the world.”

“She is a devout pro feminist college student from Iran whose pro West performance has fooled the world,” Iranian UPJ Twitter Correspondent EbrAhim Massoud (Link)

Responding to the call by the Home Minister and prime Minister of India to halt violence to facilitate talks, Maoist leaders ridiculed them and asked them to get their history right. According to them it was wrong to say that the ‘war’ that is now being played out in the theatre of the jungles of  Chhatisgarh, Jangalmahal of Bengal, Jharkhand , Orissa and other states is of recent origin. This is only the latest   phase of the “people’s war” that is being waged since 1967 and would not stop until the ultimate objective of establishing Communism is achieved.  The Constitution of the CPI(Maoist) is very unambiguous, “The ultimate aim or maximum programme of the party is the establishment of communist society. This New Democratic Revolution will be carried out and completed through armed agrarian revolutionary war i.e. the Protracted People’s War with area wise seizure of power remaining as its central task.”

Area wise seizure of power is what the Maoists are busy with. They have succeeded, partially or fully in many areas of different states. What needs to be understood is that it is not development they are opposed to as is evident from the statements of their leaders.  They are ready to let development activities take place, provided it is under their supervision. They are interested more in making themselves the lone political voice of the people. One should ask why do they keep abducting, harassing, threatening or killing the members and leaders of other political parties in the areas where they rule using the strength of their guns? Why do they force people to resign from other political parties? Their answer is very simple: whoever is seen to interrupt or impede the armed people’s war is either a class enemy or an agent of the class enemy represented by the state and is therefore on the other side of the war.
The metaphor of war which is being used describe the state led operations is in fact not even a metaphor for the Maoists. To them it is not something, which is to be dreaded and shunned, for them it is already on and it is the naivety of the liberal political class to think that it would start with the state assault on them. The Maoists  would rather love to draw the state in a protracted war. The lives lost are sacrifices on the altar of the impending revolution. The  constitution of the CPI( Maoist) incidentally states that the road to communism is long, “The struggle between socialist road and capitalist road will also continue to exist. Only depending on and carrying forward the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat can correctly resolve all these contradictions.” (Author’s emphasis)

There would always remain peoples’ enemies and it would be the revolutionary duty of the party to keep identifying them and eliminating them to safeguard the gains of the revolution.

We who are opposed to laws which rob us of our democratic rights like the AFSPA, UAPA and Public Security Acts in various garbs and want them repealed and very rightly so, how do we react to the Constitution of the CPI( Maoist)? Is it permissible to allow armed political formations to operate in a democratic framework, which works on the principle of contestation between ideas and ideologies and mobilizing public opinion around them? When the fear of the gun paralyzes this process, democracy suffocates.  Since Maoists have already established their “Areas” which are small states in themselves, it would useful and educative to study the status of democratic freedom there.

How is it that we who stand up and fight for every inch of our democratic space remain silent on this methodical, ideological assault on the very idea of democracy? Let us realize before it is too late that those who regard armed struggle as ‘the main form of struggle’ and the people’s army as ‘the main form of organization’   would only tactically tolerate civil liberty action or other mass political actions as “their purpose is to serve the war.” Once they outlive this purpose they will become dispensable items on the agenda of revolution!

What if we made 1 disciple a month who each made 1 disciple a month

Jan               2 Disciples

Feb               4 Disciples

March         8 Disciples

April          16 Disciples

May            32 Disciples

June           64 Disciples

July           128 Disciples

August     256 Disciples

Sept           512 Disciples

Oct          1024 Disciples

Nov        2045 Disciples

Dec         4096 Disciples

Movements from CultureDigitaL on Vimeo.

Cleveland, Akron and a  reported emerging brotherhood of Kent State Black Foot Soldiers are denying responsibility for the FECES & URINE BOMBING reported to have taken place at a tribute created by Kent State students for critically wounded business major Chris Kernish who now stands charged with being a reparations offender and is suspected of being a “Nigger Word Thinker.”

SEE: (EXCLUSIVE) UCLA Katherine Rosen A “Nigger Word Thinker?” Did College Student’s Vile Racist Thoughts Ignite Stabbing? UCLA Black Foot Soldiers Review Case of Damon Thompson

Yesterday, in the wake of two brothers arrested for what whites are calling an unprovoked attack on Kernich that left him unconscious and critically wounded, Ohio Yakub Muslim elders requested that any Nubians or blacks who have heard him think “nigger” come forward and bear witness against him.

“DON’T ASSAULT OR KILL THE DEVIL FOR THINKING NIGGER” – Yakub Muslim elders issue national warning to brothers & sisters awakening to new evolutionary mastership.

While key Kent State contacts are confirming the FECES BOMBING, source say it was quickly cleaned and that university officials, in hopes of preventing copy cat bombings, are denying the incident and refusing to report it to local Western media channels.

The Life and Death of the Identity

If you have been reading my posts you may have guessed that a major driver for me has been awakening.  I have enthusiastically followed a path that has moved me to ever deepening levels of understanding about the true nature of being, consistently opening up and dropping into places within me that now hold no identity, where the personal is totally unimportant, and the impulse of pure, unrestricted creation is able to shine out.  As I have shed the structures that have held my identity, I have come across some interesting challenges in relating to others and in relating to all those things to which our culture in the West gives value.    

I have been looking at my experiences as my relationship to the ego and identity – prime structures of separation – have changed and how that relates to my movement through life back towards the pulse of Creation….. It starts for us all around the time of birth when we come into form, into Life, and create an I-dentity.

The ego-identity is part of the personality structure that develops throughout life.  As a young child we are loved, nurtured, fed, held….or not.  Out of these experiences we individuate into the people that we bring into our relationships both with ourselves and with others. We individuate from our parents but also from the pure impulse of Life, learning ways that hold us apart from the true nature of our beings as unfettered expressions of all creation. We move from a state of universal union in which the heart freely resonates with everything, without fear, to one that sees itself as a unique thing, separate, special, quantifiable, defended, and we develop a personality with defenses formed by fears related to perceived threats to our survival.  These defenses create protective armoring not only in our musculature – affecting how we hold our bodies – but in how we express our energy through our emotional and mental responses to specific situations. With the fleshing out of our defenses, the ego is fully formed and with it a sense of ‘I’ – the I-dentity is born.  And the bulk of this happens before our 7^th birthdays!! 

None of us, unless Avataric, are spared this process of separation from the Mystery that is the Divine Creator.  As we incarnate numerous veils of separation are created with the strength and resistance of Teflon, yet so thin as to be almost undetectable to microscopic ethereal examination.  They are part of the spiritual skeleton of our beings. The presence of these veils makes any evolutionary move back into the unified field of pure creation impossible.  You cannot awaken with them in place, and your unique life challenges and dramas will continue to repeat themselves for as long as you identify with the places of forgetting that they support.  Unless spiritual evolution is one of your drivers they are unlikely to go, and you are equally unlikely to be interested in what might be the deeper truth behind your identity.  But if it is, and when they do go, the ego can no longer hold onto its position as the leading character in the play that is your life, and so you lose your identity.

The persona that we identify with is reinforced throughout our lives, firstly by our parents who name us and generally instill in us certain values, beliefs, and prejudices that create the foundations of our realities.  Then the reflection of our friends, acquaintances, and life experiences are added to the pot, and all these elements are embraced by our egos.  Our identity, unique and separate, is then constantly reinforced by whoever we come into contact with.  It happens on many levels but the first one is likely to be on meeting someone, when the questions we ask help form an impression of ‘self’ and ‘other’ in our minds. These ‘I am’s….’ that we exchange with each other help us to relate and each question asked builds an instantaneous picture, giving a sense of identity, interests and lifestyle.  For example:

What do you do?                        ‘I am an art consultant/I am an energy therapist’

Where do you come from?         ‘I am English, and I live in New York’

You can change your identity superficially by leaving your job without having the security of another to go to, or selling your home without any plans to find another, as I did. Either will most likely send a tremor of anxiety through your community of family and friends, and you may find that they attempt to lure you back by sending out tendrils of fear unconsciously designed to scare you back into the fold.  You will be breaking the accepted mold, leaving behind the identity that defines you to them, and which they have helped you forge.  You will probably find that you need to make adjustments as you create new relationships that reflect the movements in the axis of your existence. 

Evolutionary levels of transformation and the human response to it, will occur when you move from merely swopping or adding identities to undermining core positions and beliefs, and the supports that hold them in place. When you do this the ego will be seriously threatened and the nature of the ego-identity has to adapt or die.  Surface changes, like the ones mentioned above, can be the forerunners of the seismic movements that are going on in the inner planes of your being as you start dissolving the structures of your existence, and so too your I-dentity.  A signature of significant change is the dropping away of things, habits, and people whose presence in your life no longer resonate with you or serve you.  In relationships, if you can’t bridge the divides that can form as you change – and the onus falls on you to do this – then you will find that gradually your worlds drift apart.

As you embrace a new direction and challenge the nature of reality your extremely resilient ego is dented, but it takes on the changes as if it was going to gain from the direction you are taking.  It embraces this change from an intellectual place and creates a new identity as you embark on your search for the truth.  My ego-identity took on the identity of a spiritual path AND the spiritual seeker alongside the existing identities and the defended personality structures it already ruled.  It was happy!  It was behind this new venture!  Everything was under control, and all was well in its new world.  My interest in returning to Source had become something that my I-dentity , my ego, embraced as being fruitful to its long term wellbeing as an individual, even though it was not.  It didn’t recognize that it had everything to lose – that for it the perception of gain was just another illusion. 

Personally speaking, my journey is not unique.  Like many, I created a fabulous and strong ego that allowed me to successfully navigate the challenges that I met on my life’s path.  The impulse to awaken to the true nature of my being was not apparent to me and it didn’t start to emerge until I was in my 30s and I started to feel some dissatisfaction with what I was creating in my life. Whether we know it consciously or not, there is generally a subliminal pull that leads us, by hook or by crook, forward towards a reunion with Self. Until that point the ego, and its many masks, rules.  In my case it was never asked to step aside and allow what was behind the mask of identity to come through, because there was no awareness that there was anything other to relate with.  My identity until that time, had shifted, morphed, been knocked a little, but remained clear.  Looking back, I can chart how I, as an adult, moved through life and how I got to where I am today.  My true nature remained quietly hidden, waiting until I got fed up with the play that I had created. It has gone something like this:

• I lived a materially successful and socially active life – I conformed with the accepted standards of my peers to a large degree.
• I started to get panic attacks when some of the most painful relational woundings of my childhood began to appear in my adult relationships.  My passion for my work into which I had put 100% of my being was seriously compromised and I turned to the healing arts for help, through therapy and hands-on healing.
• I connected, with the help of my healer, to parts of me that I never realized existed before or had forgotten – I experienced expanded states of being and became fascinated with quantum theories and realities.
• I started to read about, train in, and experience other levels of existence. My awareness and my energetic container expanded enormously.
• I found teachers who reflected to me the true nature of being and encouraged me as I stepped into the stream of the awakening path.  Their awake and aware consciousness helped me to evolve.
• I stopped planning, dropped structure, and went with the flow of Life.   I sold my apartment and put all my belongings with the exception of a suitcase of clothes into storage and I traveled to places around the world that I felt called to visit. 
• I lost my sense of the personal; my sense of being in any way special; my identity with a spiritual or any other path; my templates for existence, and my identity.

It wasn’t until the supports that maintained the drama of my existence began to crumble that the ego’s throttle-hold on my life weakened, and so did my sense of identity.  But it wasn’t until the core veils went that held me in separation from Self, that the nature of my journey shifted.  I had had transcendent experiences, tastes of bliss or emptiness that felt like they must be what enlightenment is all about, but until the structures of separation disappeared, I didn’t recognize that these were little more than expanded states, amazing experiences that have very little to do with true awakening.  My I-dentity remained intact until the intellectual understanding dropped from my head and traveled right through my heart into the core of existence.  Often, for this to happen, you are called to face your greatest fear – the one that holds your deepest life-long wounding – and this is what happened for me too.  Only by surrendering did the structures that I had thought were there to protect me reveal themselves to be keeping me from my heart’s desire for reunion with the Beloved, the Creator of All that Is, and with this awareness they dissolved.  When this happens there is no choice but to wake up from your dream to the reality that there is ‘no one’ there. 

Firstly, and most importantly, you wake up to the knowledge that there is no personal I-dentity with who you were.  When you actively hunt for it in the corridors and rooms of your existence there is no ‘I’.  I was then aware that I am nothing but an expression of the pulse of creation. This knowing was slim at the beginning, but as I started to live life from this place, embodying it as fully as I could, each aspect of identity that had built up over the course of my life started to crumble.  For me it was two years from a point where I recognized that the Identity had gone to a point where I had embodied this awareness to a place of real understanding.  Like me, you may feel echoes of your identity through the conditioned responses that still trigger you – and language demands that you refer to it all the time – but the seeker, the do-er, the sense of personal, they go, along with other aspects of your being.  For me, one amazing part of this was in finding commonality with beautiful or mundane lifeforms around me, and really seeing that with the ‘death’ of my ego-identity I was just another essence expressed in Life, no different from any other, and part of the whole.

This life is a journey, that’s for sure! The death of the identity is not The End.  It is one step deeper into The Mystery!

©2009 Sarah Lidsey

Dwellers of bigger cities have an opportunity a lot for cultivating their interests in the form of the participation in all sorts circles or associations. A dance school is an example of such a training camp. Warsaw as the big city, the cultures interested in the development, offers such schools a lot to his inhabitants. People can there enrol in pairs, groups or individually, a large range of dances exists and experienced instructors are having the learning under their care. There are two main categories to choose from – the classical dance and the modern dance. What is a dance school still dealing with? Warsaw is putting to diverse answers and at many schools a possibility of competing with different persons is offered who more nicely is dancing. It is taking place in clubs of the ballroom dance. Every participant can choose the form of the learning which the most is answering him. For the example,, unusually popular ballroom dance, it possibility of the excellent play combined and the learning practically without no ancient limitations. First one’s steps on the parquet can put four-year-olds already. Of advantages of the learning it is a lot of – the dance will bring people closer, he is wonderful entertainment, he lets also for holding the neat, beautiful figure. Persons preferring the individualism will choose classes in the modern dance certainly. Abilities will be useful above all on diverse parties where independent movements and dance figures are reigning. Thanks to the learning of the modern dance we also have an opportunity to keep fit in the unusually pleasant way, there is a move instead of tiring exercises on the fitness room at the music and dance school. Warsaw has many prestigious dance schools very much, they are largely run by persons known in the business and experienced. Apart from classes for everyone schools offer individual, guaranteeing interested a lot persons courses to the benefit, for example in the form of the private instructor.

An open discussion on the relevance and implications of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill  and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2009
Saturday, November 21, Gandhi Peace Foundation, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi 2 – 6 pm.

Friends,

The current economic model of growth prevalent in India , with strong neo-liberal leanings, needs to be re-assessed in the wake of increasing alienation and dispossession of vast populations from their land and the wave of resistance, both violent and non-violent, against such activities that are being played out in many parts of the country.

In the wake of an armed operation against escalating Maoist insurgency; adivasis, particularly in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra are stiffly resisting the industrial development that threaten their traditional way of life; farmers around the country raging against acquisition of their lands in the name of growth and development – the importance of revisiting the proposed Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2009 (LAA) and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2009 (R&R) is paramount, if not imperative.

We the struggling communities from different regions of the country have resisted the government’s machinations of enacting a faulty Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act and introducing amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, promoting private and corporate interests over public good. We gathered recently in Delhi in July 2009 and our struggle gained a significant boost when the Acts could not be passed in the Budget session of the Parliament. We have been in Delhi since 18th November and held meetings at Kanjhawala, Jantar Mantar and JNU and explained our concerns on these two Bills but also on the fires raging in the country and the path of growth on which the country is being pushed today.

It is in this context that we invite you to discuss the relevance and implications of these half hearted measures for the millions of people who are struggling to retain their means of livelihood and seek meaningful rehabilitation from a system in which they no longer seem to have faith.

The panelists for this meeting are :

K B Saxena, Former Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Agriculture, Union of India now at Council for Social Development, New Delhi

Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, Ministry of Water resources, Union of India and Government’s nominee on the Sardar Sarovar review Committee now at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

Sanjay Parikh, Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of India.

Roma, Kaimur Kshetra Mahila Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, NFFPFW  (Sonbhadra)

Gautam Bandopadhyay, Nadi Ghati Morcha , Chattisgarh

Dayamani Barla, Adivasi Mulnivasi Astitva Raksha Manch, Jharkhand, INSAF [to be confirmed]

Sandhya Devi, Kalahandi Mahila Mahasangh, Orissa

Praffula Samantray, NAPM Orissa

Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan & NAPM

MODERATOR : Anand Mazgaonkar, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, NAPM Gujarat

The Endless Knot, from Wikipedia

Over the years, I have been asked how I became a so-called master. I resisted responding in any way to this question for a long time…well, until now. Close to the end of my life, it seems fitting now to tell the real story. Don’t worry, it won’t take long. You’ll be able to return quickly to whatever it is that really interests you.

One day, many, many years ago, I was sitting quietly by the roadside trying to figure out what to do with my life. I had just lost my job, my wife, and my home, and everything was in question, including the meaning of my life. I think I had been sitting pondering for several hours when a man happened along and squatted quietly on the opposite side of the road facing me. Though he said nothing, he stared at me intensely without moving a muscle. There was something about the way the man looked at me, the great concern that emanated from him, that made me think he was someone very special, perhaps even a great master.

Believing that I might learn something from this man, and with nothing better to do, I simply sat there observing, only taking breaks to care of the natural functions when the man sitting opposite me did so. Of course, sitting in that way created much tension in my body, so I began to stretch and move in all sorts of ways to relieve the tension. The man also stretched and moved but in ways that looked more interesting than mine. He seemed to know what he was doing. Some of the postures and movements even looked like yoga and qigong, which I had dabbled with. So I simply imitated him, but added from memory some of the postures and movements that I had previously learned. Soon we were spontaneously doing all kind of exercises together, even chanting and singing. I was seeing many new things about myself and really felt as though new meanings were opening up for me.

After several days, and finally coming to the realization that perhaps this man could help me answer the question that was burning inside, I asked with great intensity, “Please tell me Master, what should I do with my life?”

Startled, the man looked back at me and said in sincere confusion: “But I thought you were the master.”

The instant these words were spoken an all-embracing light turned on inside of me, a light that had never revealed itself before, and I suddenly realized who and what I was.

In response to the question, cynical or otherwise, that may have arisen in you, I will ask you one in return: aren’t we all here to help and care for one another? Aren’t we all, consciously or unconsciously, simultaneously students, teachers and even masters in relation to one another and at whatever level is possible for us? Aren’t we all part of “the endless knot” of relationship?

In any case, and for what it’s worth, that’s the story of how I first happened to be called a master. But you may call me whatever you like, as you are no doubt already doing.

Copyright 2009 by Dennis Lewis. This story was inspired by an insight I had while reading a short parable recounted by Idries Shah in his book The Commanding Self.

“How many virgins can you get?” Asks Global Black Alliance (GBA) spokesman Prince Khomeini in an address across the organization’s network. “And will you be ready when Allah calls your name?”

While his comments were not specific, many suspect his questions were in regard to last week’s military massacre at Fort Hood in Texas where some thirteen members of the terroristic American military regime lost their lives while supporting global terrorism.

The names of those killed by Hasan are: Chief Warrant Officer Michael Grant Cahill, Army Staff Sgt. Justin DeCrow, Capt. John Gaffaney, Spc. Frederick Greene, Spc. Jason Dean Hunt, Sgt. Amy Krueger, Pfc. Michael Pearson, Capt. Russell Seager, Lt. Col. Juanita L. Warman.

Tomorrow I’ll be showcasing my jewelry designs at a fundraising event called Beauty Bar Bazaar.

Beauty Bar Bazaar, a unique shopping event being held to benefit the Hip Hop 4 Life organization, will feature fabulous products by up-and-coming fashionista designers, including, jewelry, purses and accessories, plus make-up artists, hair stylists, financial advice, authors, cocktails and more. This girls’ night out shopping fundraising event will benefit the Hip Hop 4 Life, a great organization that helps NYC teens build healthy lives!

The event will take place in one of NYC’s hottest venues, Taj Lounge, Friday, November 6th, 6:00p to 7:00p Networking/ Cocktail Hour and 7:00p to 10:00p shopping! So come out this Friday evening for a drink, good music by BET’s DJ Diamond Kuts and of course, lots of great shopping!

Indian Freedom Struggle (1857-1947)

In ancient times, people from all over the world were keen to come to India. The Aryans came from Central Europe and settled down in India.The Persians followed by the Iranians and Parsis immigrated to India. Then came the Moghuls and they too settled down permanently in India. Chengis Khan, the Mongolian, invaded and looted India many times. Alexander the Great too, came to conquer India but went back after a battle with Porus. He-en Tsang from China came in pursuit of knowledge and to visit the ancient Indian universities of Nalanda and Takshila. Columbus wanted to come to India, but instead landed on the shores of America. Vasco da Gama from Portugal came to trade his country’s goods in return for Indian species. The French came and established their colonies in India. Lastly, the Britishers came and ruled over India for nearly 200 years. After the battle of Plassey in 1757, the British achieved political power in India. And their paramountcy was established during the tenure of Lord Dalhousie, who became the Governor- General in 1848. He annexed Punjab, Peshawar and the Pathan tribes in the north-west of India. And by 1856, the British conquest and its authority were firmly established. And while the British power gained its heights during the middle of the 19th century, the discontent of the local rulers, the peasantry, the intellectuals, common masses as also of the soldiers who became unemployed due to the disbanding of the armies of various states that were annexed by the British, became widespread. This soon broke out into a revolt which assumed the dimensions of the 1857 Mutiny. The Indian Mutiny of 1857 The conquest of India, which could be said to have begun with the Battle of Plassey (1757), was practically completed by the end of Dalhousie’s tenure in 1856. It had been by no means a smooth affair as the simmering discontent of the people manifested itself in many localized revolt during this period. However, the Mutiny of 1857, which began with a revolt of the military soldiers at Meerut, soon became widespread and posed a grave challenge to the British rule. Even though the British succeeded in crushing it within a year, it was certainly a popular revolt in which the Indian rulers, the masses and the militia participated so enthusiastically that it came to be regarded as the First War of Indian Independence. Introduction of zamindari system by the British, where the peasants were ruined through exorbitant charges made from them by the new class of landlords. The craftsmen were destroyed by the influx of the British manufactured goods. The religion and the caste system which formed the firm foundation of the traditional Indian society was endangered by the British administration. The Indian soldiers as well as people in administration could not rise in hierarchy as the senior jobs were reserved for the Europeans. Thus, there was all-round discontent and disgust against the British rule, which burst out in a revolt by the ‘sepoys’ at Meerut whose religious sentiments were offended when they were given new cartridges greased with cow and pig fat, whose covering had to be stripped out by biting with the mouth before using them in rifles. The Hindu as well as the Muslim soldiers, who refused to use such cartridges, were arrested which resulted in a revolt by their fellow soldiers on May 9, 1857. The rebel forces soon captured Delhi and the revolt spread to a wider area and there was uprising in almost all parts of the country. The most ferocious battles were fought in Delhi, Awadh, Rohilkhand, Bundelkhand, Allahabad, Agra, Meerut and western Bihar. The rebellious forces under the commands of Kanwar Singh in Bihar and Bakht Khan in Delhi gave a stunning blow to the British. In Kanpur, Nana Sahib was proclaimed as the Peshwa and the brave leader Tantya Tope led his troops. Rani Lakshmibai was proclaimed the ruler of Jhansi who led her troops in the heroic battles with the British. The Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs and all the other brave sons of India fought shoulder to shoulder to throw out the British. The revolt was controlled by the British within one year, it began from Meerut on 10 May 1857 and ended in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. End of the East India Company Consequent to the failure of the Revolt of 1857 rebellion, one also saw the end of the East India Company’s rule in India and many important changes took place in the British Government’s policy towards India which sought to strengthen the British rule through winning over the Indian princes, the chiefs and the landlords. Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of November 1, 1858 declared that thereafter India would be governed by and in the name of the British Monarch through a Secretary of State. The Governor General was given title of Viceroy, which meant the representative of the Monarch. Queen Victoria assumed the title of the Empress of India and thus gave the British Government unlimited powers to intervene in the internal affair of the Indian states. In brief, the British paramountcy over India, including the Indian States, was firmly established. The British gave their support to the loyal princes, zamindar and local chiefs but neglected the educated people and the common masses. They also promoted the other interests like those of the British merchants, industrialists, planters and civil servants. The people of India, as such, did not have any say in running the government or formulation of its policies. Consequently, people’s disgust with the British rule kept mounting, which gave rise to the birth of Indian National Movement. The leadership of the freedom movement passed into the hands of reformists like Raja Rammohan Roy, Bankim Chandra and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar. During this time, the binding psychological concept of National Unity was also forged in the fire of the struggle against a common foreign oppressor. Raja Rammohan Roy (1772-1833) founded the Brahmo Samaj in 1828 which aimed at purging the society of all its evil practices. He worked for eradicating evils like sati, child marriage and purdah system, championed widow marriage and women’s education and favoured English system of education in India. It was through his effort that sati was declared a legal offence by the British. Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) the disciple of Ramakrishna Pramhamsa, established the Ramkrishna Mission at Belur in 1897. He championed the supremacy of Vedantic philosophy. His talk at the Chicago (USA) Conference of World Religions in 1893 made the westerners realize the greatness of Hinduism for the first time. Formation of Indian National Congress (INC) The foundations of the Indian National Movement were laid by Suredranath Banerjee with the formation of Indian Association at Calcutta in 1876. The aim of the Association was to represent the views of the educated middle class, inspire the Indian community to take the value of united action. The Indian Association was, in a way, the forerunner of the Indian National Congress, which was founded, with the help of A.O. Hume, a retired British official. The birth of Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885 marked the entry of new educated middle-class into politics and transformed the Indian political horizon. The first session of the Indian National Congress was held in Bombay in December 1885 under the presidentship of Womesh Chandra Banerjee and was attended among others by and Badr-uddin-Tyabji. At the turn of the century, the freedom movement reached out to the common unlettered man through the launching of the “Swadeshi Movement” by leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Aurobindo Ghose. The Congress session at Calcutta in 1906, presided by Dadabhai Naoroji, gave a call for attainment of ‘Swaraj’ a type of self-government elected by the people within the British Dominion, as it prevailed in Canada and Australia, which were also the parts of the British Empire. Meanwhile, in 1909, the British Government announced certain reforms in the structure of Government in India which are known as Morley-Minto Reforms. But these reforms came as a disappointment as they did not mark any advance towards the establishment of a representative Government. The provision of special representation of the Muslim was seen as a threat to the Hindu-Muslim unity on which the strength of the National Movement rested. So, these reforms were vehemently opposed by all the leaders, including the Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Subsequently, King George V made two announcements in Delhi: firstly, the partition of Bengal, which had been effected in 1905, was annulled and, secondly, it was announced that the capital of India was to be shifted from Calcutta to Delhi. The disgust with the reforms announced in 1909 led to the intensification of the struggle for Swaraj. While, on one side, the extremist led by the great leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal waged a virtual war against the British, on the other side, the revolutionaries stepped up their violent activities There was a widespread unrest in the country. To add to the already growing discontent among the people, Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919, which empowered the Government to put people in jail without trial. This caused widespread indignation, led to massive demonstration and hartals, which the Government repressed with brutal measures like the Jaliawalla Bagh massacre, where thousand of unarmed peaceful people were gunned down on the order of General Dyer. Jallianwala Bagh Massacre Jalianwala Bagh massacre of April 13, 1919 was one of the most inhuman acts of the British rulers in India. The people of Punjab gathered on the auspicious day of Baisakhi at Jalianwala Bagh, adjacent to Golden Temple (Amritsar), to lodge their protest peacefully against persecution by the British Indian Government. General Dyer apeared suddenly with his armed police force and fired indiscriminately at innocent empty handed people leaving hundreds of people dead, including women and children. General Dyer, the butcher of Jalianwala Bagh, was later murdered by Udham Singh to avenge this barbaric act. After the First World War (1914-1918), Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi became the undisputed leader of the Congress. During this struggle, Mahatma Gandhi had developed the novel technique of non-violent agitation, which he called ‘Satyagraha’, loosely translated as ‘moral domination’. Gandhi, himself a devout Hindu, also espoused a total moral philosophy of tolerance, brotherhood of all religions, non-violence (ahimsa) and of simple living. With this, new leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose also emerged on the scene and advocated the adoption of complete independence as the goal of the National Movement. The Non-Cooperation Movement Under leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Congress launched a series of mass movements – the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 -1922 and the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. The Non-Cooperation Movement was triggered by the famous Salt (Dandi) March, when Gandhi captured the imagination of the nation by leading a band of followers from his ashram at Sabarmati, on a 200 mile trek to the remote village of Dandi on the west coast, there to prepare salt in symbolic violation of British law. He inspired millions of others to take the first step on the road to emancipation and equality. Simon Commission The Non-cooperation movement failed. Therefore there was a lull in political activities. The Simon Commission was sent to India in 1927 by the British Government to suggest further reforms in the structure of Indian Government. The Commission did not include any Indian member and the Government showed no intention of accepting the demand for Swaraj. Therefore, it sparked a wave of protests all over the country and the Congress as well as the Muslim League gave a call to boycott it under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai. The crowds were lathicharged and Lala Lajpat Rai, also called Sher-e-Punjab ( Lion of Punjab) died of the blows received in an agitation. Civil Disobedience Movement Mahatma Gandhi led the Civil Disobedience Movement that was launched in the Congress Session of December 1929. . The aim of this movement was a complete disobedience of the orders of the British Government. During this movement it was decided that India would celebrate 26th January as Independence Day all over the country. On 26th January 1930, meetings were held all over the country and the Congress tricolour was hoisted. The British Government tried to repress the movement and resorted to brutal firing, killing hundreds of people. Thousands were arrested along with Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru. But the movement spread to all the four corners of the country Following this, Round Table Conferences were arranged by the British and Gandhiji attended the second Round Table Conference at London. But nothing came out of the conference and the Civil Disobedience Movement was revived. During this time, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were arrested on the charges of throwing a bomb in the Central Assembly Hall (which is now Lok Sabha). And were hanged to death on March 23, 1931. Quit India Movement In August 1942, Gandhiji started the ‘Quit India Movement’ and decided to launch a mass civil disobedience movement ‘Do or Die’ call to force the British to leave India. The movement was followed, nonetheless, by large-scale violence directed at railway stations, telegraph offices, government buildings, and other emblems and institutions of colonial rule. There were widespread acts of sabotage, and the government held Gandhi responsible for these acts of violence, suggesting that they were a deliberate act of Congress policy. However, all the prominent leaders were arrested, the Congress was banned and the police and army were brought out to suppress the movement. Meanwhile, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who stealthily ran away from the British detention in Calcutta, reached foreign lands and organized the Indian National Army (INA) to overthrow the British from India. The Second World War broke out in September of 1939 and without consulting the Indian leaders, India was declared a warring state (on behalf of the British) by the Governor General. Subhash Chandra Bose, with the help of Japan, preceded fighting the British forces and not only freed Andaman and Nicobar Islands from the Britishers but also entered the north-eastern border of India. But in 1945 Japan was defeated and Netaji proceeded from Japan through an aeroplane to a place of safety but met with an accident and it was given out that he died in that air-crash itself. “Give me blood and I shall give you freedom” – was one of the most popular statements made by him, where he urges the people of India to join him in his freedom movement. Partition of India and Pakistan At the conclusion of the Second World War, the Labour Party, under Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee, came to power in Britain. The Labour Party was largely sympathetic towards Indian people for freedom. A Cabinet Mission was sent to India in March 1946, which after a careful study of the Indian political scenario, proposed the formation of an interim Government and convening of a Constituent Assembly comprising members elected by the provincial legislatures and nominees of the Indian states. An interim Government was formed headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. However, the Muslim League refused to participate in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly and pressed for the separate state for Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy of India, presented a plan for the division of India into India and Pakistan, and the Indian leaders had no choice but to accept the division, as the Muslim League was adamant. Thus, India became free at the stroke of midnight, on August 14, 1947. (Since then, every year India celebrates its Independence Day on 15th August). Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minster of free India and continued his term till 1964. Giving voice to the sentiments of the nation, Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we will redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance…. We end today a period of ill fortune, and India discovers herself again.” Earlier, a Constituent Assembly was formed in July 1946, to frame the Constitution of India and Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected its President. On November 26, 1946 the Constitution of India was completed and accepted by the people of India. On January 26, 1950, the Constitution was ratified and Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected the first President of India.

The Swadeshi (Bengali: স্বদেশী, Hindi: स्वदेशी) movement, part of the Indian independence movement, was a successful economic strategy to remove the British Empire from power and improve economic conditions in India through following principles of swadeshi (self-sufficiency). Strategies of the swadeshi movement involved boycotting British products and the revival of domestic-made products and production techniques.

Swadeshi Movement emanated from the partition of bengal, 1905 and continued up to 1908. It was the most successful of the pre-Gandhian movements. Chief architects were Aurobindo Ghosh, Veer Savarkar, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Lala Lajpat Rai.

Swadeshi, as a strategy, was a key focus of Mahatma Gandhi who described it as the soul of Swaraj (self rule).

The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch is an organisation committed to the promotion of Swadeshi (Indigenous) industries and culture.

The Khilafat movement (1919-1924) was a political campaign launched mainly by Muslims in British India to influence the British government and to protect the Ottoman Empire during the aftermath of World War I. The position of Caliph after the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Istanbul and Treaty of Versailles (1919) fell into a disambiguation along with the Ottoman Empire’s existence. The movement gained force after the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) which solidified the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

See: “WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A PIG.”

For basketball enthusiasts it is absolutely critical that they pay close attention when picking out a pair of basketball shoes and be sure that the shoes will give them the support, comfort and durability that is necessary for the demanding sport of basketball. Many people look at style but this should be the last consideration. The game of basketball has so many inherent quick movements and stops and starts that the choice of footwear is even more important than many other sports. The wearing of the wrong type of shoe for playing basketball and result in severe injury. Let’s take a look at some of the most important aspects to consider when shopping for basketball shoes.

There are many different types of players in the sport of basketball and the way they play determines the type of shoe they require. For example, an all around average player will do well with mid tops while those who are lighter and are very fast with no ankle problems can get by with low tops. A player who is known as a power player should go with a high top shoe to give them the best support for their ankles as well as optimum comfort.

As I mentioned above, the sport of basketball consists of numerous stops starts and quick movements which is why it is crucial that the shoes you choose have exceptional traction to prevent sliding and slipping as well as unnecessary injuries.

It should not even have to be said that comfort is an absolute must. The shoes should almost fit like a second skin. They need to fit snugly but not too snug so that they will not slip on your feet during quick movements. You will also want the footwear you choose to breathe well so you want to choose shoes that have leather uppers or uppers of some other breathable material.

If you are an avid basketball player then you will want to put durability at the top of your list. It pays to spend a little more to buy a quality shoe than to go cheap. You will pay more but it will pay off in a longer lasting pair of basketball shoes.

I consider style last when I ma looking for a pair of quality basketball shoes because I could care less about what they look like. I am more concerned with the factors above. If they have everything I need and they are stylish then that’s a bonus. It shouldn’t be difficult to accomplish these days with the diverse choices available in basketball shoes alone.

With the debate on Maoist violence and Operation Green Hunt hotting up, things are taking a disturbing turn. The danger really is that all spaces of radical political movements and indeed the entire space of the Left, part of it gradually vacated by the parliamentary ‘Left’ in recent decades and finally completely abandoned in the last few years, will now be virtually erased. In its place will be installed the phantom of an ‘armed struggle’ that threatens to completely swallow up the spaces once occupied by different shades of the CPI(ML) and the Naxalite movement and other Left-of-CPM groups and movements.
It all began, of course, with the declaration of the Prime Minister some years ago, that Maoism (which is used interchangeably, sometimes out of ignorance and often with deliberation, with Naxalism) ‘was the single biggest security threat to the country’ – a highly exaggerated claim but entirely understandable in retrospect. Understandable because, by reducing the entire spectrum of the non parliamentary Left and all shades of Naxalism – and more importantly all big anti-corporate mass stuggles – to ‘Maoism’, he was deligitimizing the very idea of the Left, as it were. This was the best bet of the fanatically neo-liberal Manhohan-Chidambaram-Montek group – the middle digit of this triumvirate also being more than just an ‘ideological’ neo-liberal; after all he is known to have actual stakes in the well-being of the corporate marauders of Niyamgiri/ Lanjigarh, Goa and other places.  Manmohan Singh’s identification of ‘Naxalites’ and ‘left-wing extremism’ as the ‘number one security threat’ makes eminent sense then, for it is only when all these struggles against corporate plunder of the forest and mining areas are defeated can the neo-liberal dream be realized.

It is well known that for quite sometime now state, district and local level administrations in different parts of the country have found it truly rewarding to brand all local activists – even those like the Gandhian Himanshu Kumar or Sandeep Pandey – as Maoists. A case of calling a dog mad before killing it, one might say.  Thus when there was a popular rebellion in Nandigram, we saw state CPM leaders allege a ‘Maoist plot’ with a politburo member of the party even alleging that ‘they’ were coming by the sea-route to Nandigram! It did not work that time. But by the time Lalgarh happened, it did. More often than not, this strategy works wonders. And it is employed by administrations and governments irrespective of whether they are run by the BJP, the Congress or the CPM.

This strategy suits the intentions and plans of corporate plunderers, the ruling coterie and their cheer-leaders in the media. Thus the effort to relentlessly reduce every voice of protest to ‘Maoism’. And it is here that the symbiosis between the state and its mimicry – in the form of the ’state-to-be’ (codenamed ‘Maoism/Maoist’) – becomes most evident. Each needs the other. A pervasive myth is manufactured through this symbiosis  – a myth that has lately found expression through some very articulate and high-profile voices among sections of the radical intelligentsia: The myth of the Maoist as the answer to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and corporate designs in the forest and mining areas. This myth goes hand in hand with another: that the Maoist only takes up arms and kills because s/he (or her loved ones) is being killed and raped day in and day out. This is a story that has been endlessly retailed in the past few months and seems to be fast becoming some kind of common sense.
And yet, there is a sleight of hand involved here. In the first place, this myth deliberately screens out the fact that nowhere have the really powerful resistances to corporate and neo-liberal designs been more effective than where these resistances were actual mass movements. From Singur and Nandigram to Pen Raigad and Goa, to the various unreported and ‘unspectacular’ struggles in Jharkhand and Orissa, every struggle that has succeeded in rolling back such designs has been a mass struggle. There have, in fact, been even much older struggles like the Koel Karo struggle that have succeded in stalling the dam project without ever picking up the gun. This is not to say that these are non-violent Gandhian struggles. Yes, there was violence in Kalinganagar, Singur and Nandigram. In Kalinganagar, it was the naked violence of the state that came into full view and put a huge question mark over the ethics of the ‘Development’ neo-liberal style. In Singur, too, it was the violence of the police against the unarmed peasants that was on display. It was different in Nandigram – but there it was not really violence against aparticular set of people (at least initially) but a kind of symbolic violence against the CPM offices that gave vent to the anger that had boiled over once the information of impending land acquisition leaked out. It was only when the party-state violence began to be unleashed on the rebellion that more direct bloodshed took place. At any rate, the violence there had a close connection with breakdown of the long reign of unspoken terror in rural Bengal. The struggles that followed Nandigram – the Nandigram effect – in other parts of the country, or struggles that acquired a new legitimacy after it, put the state on the backfoot.Violence in all these cases was exercised at the limit point – or not at all.  At any rate, it was more a consequence of mass anger – not the premeditated terroristic attack of a force armed to the teeth.

It can be argued, in fact, that violence may at times become necessary in the course of an otherwise non-violent mass movement. In a country like India, it may be difficult to even contest a panchayat election, let alone win it, if the force of upper caste landlords’ armed might is not met with a deterrent – a possibility of retaliation. Such violence – or simply a threat of violence – is very different from the cult of the gun that has now become part and parcel of a celebratory rhetoric of the Maoists and their intellectual supporters.

The sleight of hand is also apparent at another level. It lies in the representation of the ‘Maoist’ as someone forced to resort to arms under threat of his/her life and honour. This representation obliterates the distinction that is most crucial here:  The Maoist – as in the party and its leadership – is a worshipper of violence independent of any contingency and needs to be discussed separately from those hundreds of others who might be attracted towards it in specific circumstances as the armed might of the Maoists seems to provide them some security against the violence of the state. A quick glance at the history of the People’s War Group and the Maoist Communist Centre should be enough to convince anyone that their attachment to violence is independent of everything else. Violence is to them not merely legitimate but a necessary means of achieving political ends – that is, ‘capture of state power’. Thus when sections of the radical intelligentsia demand ‘unconditional talks with the Maoists’ of the government, one is not quite sure what the talks are supposed to be about. Are they talks meant to negotiate something specific, say the several MOUs that have been signed between the government and the corporations? If that is the case, will the Maoists give up arms or armed struggle were these to be scrapped? Clearly not. The Maoists are fighting for state power and have made no bones about it. Then what are the talks meant to be – except as a ruse to buy time strategically, in order to regroup and reorganize?

It is true that in the aftermath of the final defeat of the Narmada Bachao Andolan – where every effort by the movement to seek redressal within the framework of the state’s institutions, its judiciary and its political process was met with cynical disregard – the Maoist option did begin to seem attractive to some people. Even leaders like Medha Patkar and BD Sharma, for example, began to express doubts about what signals the state was sending and whether allying with the Maoists was not something to be seriously considered. Needless to say, such a feeling of desperation among these stalwarts of people’s movements says more about the state than about military violence as a strategic option. As a matter of fact, it is well known that in many places where the Maoists hold sway, their extortion economy functions by making peace with contractors and corporations and with the local development bureaucracy. So clearly, the mere fact that at some point the Maoist option can seem attractive to some people is not argument enough, either about its ethicality or indeed, its efficacy.

At any rate, we know that the historical destiny of all twentieth century revolutions has been to simply ‘build capitalism’: armed struggle or no armed struggle, no ’socialist’ experiment has produced anything but a more ruthless capitalism and and even more ruthelss modernity at the end of the day.  Even Prachanda, at the end of a decade-long Maoist insurgency, after he assumed power, had to asssure the Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry not to be frightened – for the Maoists only wanted to build capitalism.

A number of activists from the South Asia Solidarity Initiative (SASI) in New York have initiated a reading group on South Asia.  The notes below are the second in a series of commentaries following reading discussions that some members of the reading group are posting on Kafila.  This is an attempt to broaden the discussions and in the process make it a productive dialogue to understand developments in the region and deepen our solidarity.

Debating “Political Islam”

– Svati Shah, Biju Mathew, Sumitra Rajkumar, Prachi Patankar and Ahilan Kadirgamar

The recent debate between Samir Amin and Tariq Amin-Khan on a left perspective on “political Islam” in the context of imperialism, published in Monthly Review (December 2007 and March 2009), provides an opportunity to reflect on a number of issues that have vexed the anti-war movement and the left with respect to the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The most vexing of these issues has been the question of whom the left should target as its allies in those countries, and what position the left should take toward so-called “political Islam,” represented by Islamist groups calling for an end to foreign occupation.  The definition of “political Islam” is presented below in relation to each critique.  Both Amin and Amin-Khan are in agreement that both “political Islam” and imperialism have to be challenged simultaneously.  There are no strategic questions here, in terms of joining one to fight the other.  The defeat or withdrawal of both is desirable in the interests of a people-centred politics.  In imperialism’s projection of capitalism and reactionary Islam’s comfort with capitalism (that class and gender do not trouble it) they are objective allies even if on the ground their adherents are military enemies.  This initial agreement then delves into a number of nuanced questions that must be considered in order to foster the return to a people centred politics in both of these countries, and the regions as a whole.

Tariq Amin-Khan begins by making a nuanced distinction between “political Islam” and “militant Islam.”  “Political Islam” belonged to the elite and has a continuity from colonial times, when it was used to manoeuvre local elites, to the post-colonial and Cold War context, when it was used to capture state power, a strategy that has extended into the post-Cold War period.  Amin-Khan claims that the “political Islam” of the elites, for most part, did not take on an insurrectionary or armed politics, and attempted to capture state power through electoral politics or in alliance with the military.  “Militant Islam” on the other hand, while it finds its lineage in “political Islam” prior to 1989, emerges increasingly powerful in the latter part of the Cold War when it was complicit with US imperialism, the growth of the Taliban through support from the US government in the Cold War being a classic example of this phenomenon.  However, in the post-Cold War period, this “militant Islam” takes up armed opposition to both the elite-driven states in Muslim majority countries, as well as in opposing US imperialism.  Such nuance in understanding the various forms of Islamic movements is important for Amin-Khan to avoid the Left’s tendency to dismiss all Islamic movements as reactionary and, in the process, leaving the Left without the capacity to engage with people who, for different reasons and varying degrees, have supported such Islamic movements.  Such nuance can come only with a political economic analysis of our societies, the ground on which these Islamic movements have risen.  An ideological critique of these Islamic movements alone will not suffice to understand their capacity to reshape the political terrain and win over sections of the people.

Both authors highlight the ways in which the decimation of the Left in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, in the 1970s and 1980s, by the US and its client states, and the vacuum created by such decimation, also provided the room for anti-democratic, reactionary forces to come to the fore.  The Left’s weakness on the ground today is amplified by its inability to provide an alternative vision to the people in the post-Soviet era. Thus, both in its ability to mobilize as well as to put forward an alternative vision, Left movements have not recovered from their set backs, be they in 1989, or in 1968.

Both authors also convey that there is a way in which both imperialism and “political Islam” operate within and sustain capitalism. This conclusion is one that can be drawn out at multiple levels. The case on imperialism is an obvious one in as much as imperialism is often a response from segments of the capitalist class to certain internal crisis of capitalism. The case of where “political Islam” meets capitalism is more complicated. The most obvious level at which it operates is apparent in the ways in which imperialism consolidates its rationales and strategies around the idea of a threat.  “Political Islam” in the contemporary context is the new ‘perfect foil’ for imperialist forces.  We may also interrogate the notion of “political Islam” within the fold of capitalism by seriously asking the question of class.  The project of “political Islam,” in all its variations, still engenders the reproduction of a class-stratified society.

One clear conclusion from this debate for our reading group was that it is crucial for the left not to get locked into the thesis that imperialism and “political Islam” are opposed to each other, and therefore to oppose one means not to oppose the other. Instead if we follow through with the analysis, then it becomes clear that we need to oppose imperialism unequivocally, that we must oppose “political Islam” while understanding its appeal to poor people. In particular, we must think strategically about how to create that third space which neither ends up reproducing an anti Islamic line, nor fall into the trap of reducing US-led imperialism to a ‘cultural’ conflict.  The Left’s tendency to retreat into the received politics of the Cold War era, where indeed imperialism fostered the growth of reactionary Islamic forces against secular and Left forces and secular democratic states, opens up the much larger question of how “political Islam” is constituted, of secular politics and, for that matter, the secular state as well.  But that we must discuss at a later date.