Mother India

Palash Biswas

(Contact: Palash C Biswas, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata-700110, India)

mother India has been a favourite film in our peasant family. With Do Bigha jameen this film portrays the Rural India in the same way as depicted by Munshi Prem Chand in his epic novel godan. I first saw the film in my childhood. I enjoyed the film anytime whenevr it was telecasted on small screen as I never miss an opportunity to see Teesri Kasam. Recently I saw Mother India once again and it seems to be the most relevent film till this date, as I feel. No less than Twenty thousand farmers died victimised by Globalistion since 1998. Bidarbh has becom famous for suicides. suicide by a farmer does not stun any one today. It is a dull routine of everyday life in Rural India. I find a new meaning of Samu`s leaving his family and the fight launched by his wife , the mother India. The bleeding continues and no river , no ocean in this world seems to sustain without the blood of peasants worldwide. This is globalisation. Is any one interested to do a remake of Mother India in the Sez context as they have done so many times?

The stotry line:
Radha (Nargis) now an old woman remembers her past. She remembers her married life. The family has to work extremely hard to pay off the moneylender Sukhilala (Kanhaiyalal). Her husband (Raj Kumar) loses both his arms in an accident and feeling useless abandons the family. Alone, Radha has to raise her children while fending off financial as well as sexual pressures from Sukhilala. One son dies in a flood, and in later years one son Ramu (Rajendra Kumar) grows to be a dutiful son while the other Birju (Sunil Dutt) becomes a rebel committed to direct, violent action. Finally to preserve the honour of the village, Radha puts an end to Birju's rebellious activities by shooting him down.

Until recently, before satellite television changed viewing habits, Mehboob Khan's Mother India (1957), could boast the remarkable distinction of having been constantly in distribution since its first release. Rooted both in Hindu mythology and in the collective experience of a newly independent nation-state on the brink of industrialization and social change, the film, starring screen legends like Nargis, Sunil Dutt and Rajendra Kumar, is a family melodrama that moves inexorably towards tragedy and renewal.The most important film of its time and now a national epic, Mother India portrayed rural life as the true 'essence' of India. The heroine, Radha, embodied the moral values and social customs that form the basis of traditional Indian society. Nargis Dutt played a role that no one could repeat. Not even our darlings like Shabana azmi, Smita Patil or konkana sensharma. Hitherto nargis played typical raj kapoor romantic films and she had been best known as in pair. She felt the pain, pangs and passion of real indian rural woman. She challanges goddess laxmi, ` Kabhi Maa Banke dekho’. Her cry is an eternal cry of mothre India, ` Mere Bacche Bhookhe hai ( My children are Hungry). Well, the real mother India is also crying all the time that her childre are starving. Only intellects like Mahashweta devi, Medha, Arundhati and a section of Kolkata Intellegentsia seem to have listened the cry. Others who use art, literature and culture as a best tool to promote prostitution, are quite detached. best examples are Sunil Gango, Saumitra chatterjee, Mrinal sen, amartya sen and Md Yunus. Who remained silent during all the turmoil in singur and nandigram, have come out of den to save the brahmin Pustak Mela.

Rajkumar played not a lesser role as he reprents the helplessness of Indian peasants. He wipes the sindoor on her wife`s forehead. Better expressesed is the suicide trend , globalisation and SEZ econmy, in this single shot.

Though we don1t face any resistance as we see in Benegal films Ankur, Nishant and Manthan. Shrikakulam , Telengana or Naxalbari had not been the inspiration for Mehbbob. We may not find nandigram or singur in Mother India, but we definitely see shadow of Bidarbh and Kalahandi all the way. Life struggle of Inda`s rural underclass population is honestly portrayed without any political dimention.Radha stood as a symbol of Indian womanhood and a new independent nation.In 1947 India gained independence from British rule. The country was caught between the need to modernise and continue the technological advances of the last two decades, and the need to maintain traditional moral values and avoid cultural decline.Cities were at the centre of many social and economic changes. Seen as the source of employment and wealth they attracted thousands of migrant workers from the villages. In this period of transition, films looked at the question of national identity and what the meaning of being Indian meant. They explored issues of modernity versus tradition, of urban life versus the rural ideal. Cities were projected as corrupt and evil while villages were seen to preserve social and moral values.

You may witness the sets of Mother India real anywhere in India thanks to NRI Ruling Brahminical classes whic have enslaved the Rural India by Hindutva politics of different brands in cludin Left, Right and centrist. Just vist bidarbh. You may chose singur. Why Nandigram also seems to be very appropriate set for mothre India. Will Mrina sen, Gautam Ghosh, rRtuparna, Aparna sen, Shyam benegal, Maniratnam, Adoor, anyone would like to shoot live?

Do all the different facets of her suffering allow "Mother India" to reach a moment of absolute clarity at the end? Is she exhibiting a healthy anger, or is it the sentimentalised anger of those who like to believe that there is nothing more ennobling than a victim who accepts her fate. These ambiguities, along with the lushly beautiful image of Nargis toiling away in glorious cinematic colour, are what make the myth of "Mother India" so compelling. In a poor country it is almost a consolation to be a victim. Women have been persuaded to play this role till it has almost become a hereditary right to become widows, to become "satis" to become temple prostitutes, to be labelled as "unclean", or "barren" or to be regarded as property to be bartered as the system demands. This type of anger fragments a society and destroys an individual into thinking that he or she is just a helpless plaything for the gods, or economic forces to control or destroy, or the next well meaning NGO to bachao. It is quite the opposite of the positive anger that a Vivekananda, or a Gandhi, or any of the social reformers of the pre-Independence era, were able to instil.

REACHING villages in eastern Midnapur, 120km (75 miles) south of Kolkata, where a branch of the Ganges runs into the sea, has become an ordeal. Trenches have been cut into the approach roads and bricks and palm-trunks piled over them; no vehicle bigger than a motorcycle can pass. Beside the barricades, black rags hang from bamboo flagstaffs—in honour, the locals say, of half a dozen villagers killed this month in a battle with the state government's goons. At the entrance to one village, Gar Chakraberia, a burnt-out police van bears their epitaph: “We will never let industry take our motherland.”The cause of the conflict is a plan by West Bengal's Communist government to grant land to an Indonesian conglomerate, the Salim Group, which wants to build petrochemical plants over Midnapur's fishponds and paddy fields. The group has been promised 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) in the form of two special economic zones (SEZs)—havens for export-driven industry, with light taxation and other perks. The government hopes that, as in China, SEZs will boost the development of infrastructure and manufacturing. Since it passed a law offering improved terms for investors in the zones last year, 63 have been approved, 237 have been all but approved and over 400 are being considered.

The film, Mother india begins with the finishing of a water canal to the village set in the present. Radha (Nargis), as the 'mother' of the village is asked to open the canal and remembers back to her past when she was newly married, mirroring the new independence of India.The wedding between Radha and Shamu (Raaj Kumar) was paid for by Radha's mother in law who raised a loan from the moneylender, Sukhilala. This event starts the spiral of poverty and hardship which Radha endures. The conditions of the loan are disputed but the village elders decide in favour of the moneylender after which Shamu and Radha are forced to pay three quarters of their crop as interest on the loan of 500 rupees.Whilst trying to bring more of their land into use to alleviate their poverty, Shamu's arms are crushed by a boulder. He is shamed by his helplessness and is humiliated by others in the village, deciding that he is no use to his family he leaves and does not return. Soon after this, Radha's mother in law dies.

Radha continues to work in the fields with her children and gives birth again. Sukhilala offers to help alleviate her poverty in return for Radha marrying him, but she refuses to "sell herself". A storm sweeps through the village destroying the harvest and killing Radha's youngest child - the villagers start to migrate but decide to stay and rebuild on the urging of Radha.

The film then skips forward several years to when Radha's two surviving children, Birju and Ramu, are young men. Birju, embittered by the exactions of Sukhilala since he was a child takes out his frustrations by pestering the village girls, especially Sukhilala's daughter. Ramu, by contrast, has a calmer temper and is married soon after. He becomes a father but his wife is soon absorbed into the cycle of poverty in the family.

Birju's anger finally becomes dangerous and, after being provoked, attacks Sukhilala and his daughter as well as violently lashing out at his family. He is chased out of the village and becomes a bandit. On the day of the weeding of Sukhilala's daughter, Birju returns to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and takes his daughter - but Radha, who had promised that Birju would not do harm, shoots Birju who dies in her arms. The film ends with her opening of the canal and reddish water flowing into the fields.

this story is repeated again and again. Now it has got the global dimention, as not only the feudal lord, this time the entire state machinery is invoved to evict Indian peasants from their land an life.

Real Double speak may not be compared with mother India at all. Leader of one of the major constituents of the Left Front, Mr Debabrata Biswas is the general secretary of the All-India Forward Bloc, the party founded by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939. Holding the party post for the third consecutive term since 1997, sixty-one-year-old Mr Biswas entered politics as a student leader.
A Rajya Sabha member for the third term, Mr Biswas hails from Bagnam village, just 10 km from Singur, the Hooghly village where the West Bengal government had to use the police to control protests over land acquisition for the Tata small car project.
Singur received nationwide attention and brought Left Front unity under strain.
Many Left Front leaders, including Mr Biswas, complained that the confusion arose because of lack of transparency in the land acquisition process. But despite the Left supporters have come out against SEZ in Nandigram, the leaders of the left all around are out to save the front, the governments in states and centre and the interests of the ruling classes.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.

Tagore wrote Bahart Tirtha, Jana gana Mana and dui Bigha Jami. Bankim wrote Vande Mataram and anando Math- all depicting what India was under Colonial rule. Mother India is essentially a story of free India. And what a freedom have we got. The peasants are free to commit suicide and the poor population living under poverty line has got the right to succumb anytime. What sovereignity have we got that we follow every dictate from Washingto and World Bank and IMF play non constitutional agents to run the government alligning with foriegn capital and corporations with a sole aim to protect US interests anywhere in this world.

Nature and man seem to be different. different are the polity and society. We have surrenedered our culture and laguages, folk and music, arts and crafts the entire production system. Kanhaialal would not have played the roles played by Dr Manmohan singh, Buddhdev Bhattacharya, Left leaders and chief ministers of India. In Mehboob's famous film, "Mother India" the most electrifying moment comes at the end, when Nargis, Indian cinema's most enduring heroine, picks up a gun and kills her own favourite son Birju, who has become a dacoit, when he comes to take revenge against the moneylender at whose hands his mother has suffered all her life. It is more than 40 years since "Mother India" was shown in 1957, and few people will remember the extraordinary hold that the film had on the imagination of the viewers. It was in part a response to the trauma of Partition, where like the Birju figure, one part of the country had turned against the Motherland. In another light, it was an epic poem to the suffering image of the Indian woman as exemplified in the transformation of Nargis, from a beautiful bride, to the anguished wife, mother, tiller of the soil, a single woman whose body is still desired by the greedy moneylender and finally the saviour of the village, who goes against her innermost instincts to kill her son. You couldn't get more reactionary than that. It's a triumph of the patriarchy where even the most oppressed of victims turns around and supports the old feudal order. There could be no bigger sacrifice than that of a Mother killing her own son for the greater good of society, even a society that has just ground her into the soil.

Not only Singur or Nandigram or Barasat or Bhangad or Haripur, not only Maharashtra and uttar Pradesh, now Punjab farmers also have lodged their protest agaist the murder of Rural India. Farmers of punajab clashed on Wednesday with Police in Barnala to save their green fields.
Protesting against forcible acquisition of the farmers’ land and seeking its restoration, activists of various farmer bodies today clashed with the Police in Barnala. The farmers allege that the government was forcibly acquiring farmers’ lands and protecting the interests of big business houses. They have also accused the government of forcibly handing over 376 acres of land in three Barnala villages to Trident under the same policy. On the other hand, on Tuesday, January 30, 2007,Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has issued a fresh ultimatum on Singur.It was her first public appearance since she was released from hospital after her 25-day hunger strike last month. The Trinamool leader warned that if the Tatas and the West Bengal government did not do a rethink on the Tata Motors factory at Singur within the next 10 days, she would not be responsible for the trouble that was inevitable.

Every Tata has his legacy and Ratan Tata, the man with a rare mix of grace, composure and steely nerves, has created his own by winning the Corus battle against odds just as he steered the people's car project at Singur in West Bengal. Since taking the reins of the $21.9 billion Tata business empire in 1991, Ratan Tata, 69, has only steeled the group's reputation of integrity, goodwill and competence. To the Indian polity, Tata, who is heading the Investment Commission, is an apolitical policymaker, while to corporate India, he is a great visionary and for the group, he is an outstanding entrepreneur. The takeover of the Anglo-Dutch steelmaker is especially close to the heart of Ratan Tata, as it coincides with Tata Steel's 100th year. Tata Steel was founded in 1907 despite hurdles from the then British colonial masters. But it took a lot of perseverance on his part before the Corus deal was finally clinched.

The last five years have seen Tatas emerging as India's biggest acquirer of global entities, adding one company after another to the kitty of the group, which otherwise is also a major expansion drive with an investment of over Rs 180,000 crore (Rs 1,800 billion) in the next 5-7 years.

Therefore, it doesn't come as a surprise that he is many a times asked to lead corporate giants, along with the Prime Minister, to showcase India as an investment destination.

Mamata Banerjee on Sunady accused the West Bengal government of having "double standards", saying it was enforcing prohibitory orders on common people at Singur in Hooghly district while helping the Tatas go ahead with the work for setting up their small car factory there.
"Everyone is equal before the law. Then why is it that commoners are not being allowed to enter Singur through enforcement orders under section 144 CrPC," she said.
"While there is one law for the common people why then there should be a separate provision for the Tatas," she said adding "We are opposed to setting up industries on fertile agricultural land. Let the industries come up on non-agricultural land."
She said "provocative" statements of the ruling party leaders and the role of the "callous" administration had created the impasse at Nandigram in east Midnapur district where the opposition parties are protesting, vowing to oppose any move for acquisition of farmland for the proposed SEZ of Indonesian business house Salim Group.
"Similarly, the government attitude is responsible for the present situation at Singur," she said. Banerjee was reacting to the clashes between Trinamool supporters and the police near Singur today during a demonstration to protest the start of work on the Tatas` small car project. The Trinamool chief observed a 25-day hunger strike last month demanding re-location of the plant, while social activist Medha Patkar also made repeated attempts to reach Singur where prohibitory orders were clamped by the administration following initial protests. Official sources had earlier said the prohibitory orders were in force as it was apprehended that some groups opposed to farmland acquisition might "instigate trouble".

Besides the forcible land acquisition for SEZs, the farmers allege that it is the government’s failure to reach out to them at the grassroots that has hurt the community the most. The farmers said they would not allow anyone to step into their land and would continue with the stir.

Meanwhile Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus says SEZ policy is sustainable > He follows the Amarty Sen linewhich is quite in vogue in Asian countries. Economics has always been a tool for capitalism as Adam smith invented the genre.he case for free trade rests on the age-old principle of comparative advantage, the idea that countries are better off when they export the things they are best at producing, and import the rest. Most mainstream economists accept the principle, but even they have serious differences of opinion on the balance of potential benefits and actual costs from trade and on the importance of social protection for the poor. Free traders believe that the rising tide of international specialization and investment lifts all boats. Others point out that many poor people lack the capacity to adjust, retool and relocate with changing market conditions. These scholars argue that the benefits of specialization materialize in the long run, over which people and resources are assumed to be fully mobile, whereas the adjustments can cause pain in the short run.

The debate among economists is a paragon of civility compared withthe one taking place in the streets. Antiglobalizers' central claim is that globalization is making the rich richer and the poor poorer; proglobalizers assert that it actually helps the poor. But if one looks at the factual evidence, the matter is rather more complicated. On the basis of household survey data collected by different agencies, the World Bank estimates the fraction of the population in developing countries that falls below the $1-a-day poverty line (at 1993 prices)--an admittedly crude but internationally comparable level. By this measure, extreme poverty is declining in the aggregate. The trend is particularly pronounced in East, South and Southeast Asia. Poverty has declined sharply in China, India and Indonesia--countries that have long been characterized by massive rural poverty and that together account for about half the total population of develop­-ing countries. Between 1981 and 2001 the percentage of rural people living on less than $1 a day decreased from 79 to 27 percent in China, 63 to 42 percent in India, and 55 to 11 percent in Indonesia.

Even as the farmers protest against special economic zone (SEZ) proposals in the country, Nobel Laureate and Chief Architect of Grameen Bank and the main micro-financing body in Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus said on Tuesday that Indian SEZ policy is sustainable in the long term.

"SEZ policy is definitely sustainable for India. There is a limit to development which agriculture can achieve. For a jump in growth, industrialisation is necessary. You have to make a choice between agriculture and industrialisation," Prof Yunus said on the sidelines of a conference.

The question is on which land these projects are being set up, he said, adding the protests led by farmers will fade away if they are convinced that their 'barren land' will be put to productive use.

"The first step to win their favour is to make them evacuate the barren land with decency and respect by giving adequate compensation," Prof Yunus added.

Since its inception, the policy to allow companies to set up SEZs in the country has been under fire from different bodies, creating doubts about its success.

Salim Group SEZ project in Nandigram village in East Midnapore district of West Bengal is being opposed by the farmers.

Well Yunus saheb, you may know better.

In 1993, anticipating a U.S. ban on imports of products made using child labor, the garment industry in Bangladesh dismissed an estimated 50,000 children. UNICEF and local aid groups investigated what happened to them. About 10,000 children went back to school, but the rest ended up in much inferior occupations, including stone breaking and child prostitution. That does not excuse the appalling working conditions in the sweatshops, let alone the cases of forced or unsafe labor, but advocates must recognize the severely limited existing opportunities for the poor and the possible unintended consequences of "fair trade" policies.
The Local Roots of Poverty
Integration into the international economy brings not only opportunities but also problems. Even when new jobs are better than the old ones, the transition can be wrenching. Most poor countries provide very little effective social protection to help people who have lost their jobs and not yet found new ones. Moreover, vast numbers of the poor work on their own small farms or for household enterprises. The major constraints they usually face are domestic, such as lack of access to credit, poor infrastructure, venal government officials and insecure land rights. Weak states, unaccountable regimes, lopsided wealth distribution, and inept or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats often combine to block out the opportunities for the poor. Opening markets without relieving these domestic constraints forces people to compete with one hand tied behind their back. The result can be deepened poverty.

Yunus sheb is quite detached in every respect whatever happens in Bangladesh and in this Sub Continent. he does not stand with Bangla Inteeligentsia as same thing is seen in case of another prominent Economist, the Indian Amartya sen.The experiences of these and other countries demonstrate that antipoverty programs need not be blocked by the forces of globalization. There is no "race to the bottom" in which countries must abandon social programs to keep up economically; in fact, social and economic goals can be mutually supportive. Land reform, expansion of credit and services for small producers, retraining and income support for displaced workers, public-works programs for the unemployed, and provision of basic education and health can enhance the productivity of workers and farmers and thereby contribute to a country's global competitiveness. Such programs may require a rethinking of budget priorities in those nations and a more accountable political and administrative framework, but the obstacles are largely domestic. Conversely, closing the economy to international trade does not reduce the power of the relevant vested interests: landlords, politicians and bureaucrats, and the rich who enjoy government subsidies. Thus, globalization is not the main cause of developing countries' problems, contrary to the claim of critics of globalization--just as globalization is often not the main solution to these problems, contrary to the claim of overenthusiastic free traders.

Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, who appeared before the public on Monday for the first time a month after she ended her fast over Singur, announced her support for the Nandigram villagers.

. This week the government froze the approval process. SEZs have been attacked on many fronts: by social activists, opposition politicians and even some government members. But the fiercest critics are those defending the right of farmers to their plots—what even Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister, calls “the sacred tie between the tiller and the land”.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.

In India, Gandhiji was able to mobilise the latent anger of a colonised society into a weapon of peaceful resistance. By involving the women of the country in the freedom movement he accomplished through the moral force of Satyagraha what the two World Wars had done for the West. Women gained a professional status. They could compete with men on the factory floor in the industrialised countries. While in India they could aspire to the more elite professions such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, writers and cultural activists. For such a rigidly stratified society it was perhaps to be expected that even the liberation of women should take place along class ines.

In this entertaining and insightful examination of the classic, Gayatri Chatterjee, winner of the President's Gold Medal for the Best Book on Cinema, outlines the film's eventful production history, the ambitious vision of its director, and the brilliance of its stars. She also analyses its epic-style narrative, the mythological underpinnings, the many references to the history of a country in transition, and its relation to post-Independence culture and politics, to show why Mother India is a cornerstone of Indian cinema.
Starring
Nargis, Raj Kumar, Sunil Dutt, Rajendra Kumar, Kanhaiyalal

Story and Script
Mehboob Khan

Dialogue
Vajahat Mirza, S. Ali Raza

Cinematography
Faredoon Irani

Editing
Shamsudin Kadri

Art Direction
V.H. Palnitkar

Choreography
Chiman Seth

Lyrics
Shakeel Badayuni

Music
Naushad

Directed by
Mehboob Khan

The film

Mother India is the ultimate tribute to Indian Womanhood! This epic saga of the sufferings of an Indian peasant woman has an inherent and perennial appeal, being typical of the Indian situation. So tremendous was its success that the film is in fact a reference point in the long-suffering mother genre and is like an Indian Gone With the Wind (1939).

The film is an opulent colour remake of Mehboob's earlier austere Black and White film Aurat (1940). Raised in a village himself, Mehboob himself was familiar with rural life, its customs and manners, its soil, seasons, sufferings and joys and creates a totally Indian experience in milieu, detail, characters and dramatic incidents.However Mehboob raises all these elements to make a highly charged film that is larger than life and one that admittedly takes a totally romanticized look at rural India.

The film makes heavy use of psychoanalytic and other kinds of symbolism and nationalist allegory. (The peasants forming a chorus outlining a map of India) In fact everything about the film is highly charged right down to the strong, earthy central performance of Nargis. The film represents the pinnacle of her career and won her the Best actress award at the prestigious Karlovy Vary festival. To quote the Filmindia review of the film...

"Remove Nargis and there is no Mother India. Nargis is both the body and soul of the picture. Never before has this girl given such a superb and dynamic performance. Nargis reaches such rare heights of emotion that it will be difficult to find another artiste in the entire film world today to compare with her. Nargis lives the role better than Radha could have lived it."

Other strong performances in the film come from Sunil Dutt as the wayward son Birju (Initially Dilip Kumar and Hollywood star Sabu were in the running for this role and it is said that Dilip Kumar made Ganga Jamuna (1961) with himself as the wayward brother as an answer to Mother India), Master Sajid as the young Birju and Kanhaiyalal as the creepily, evil moneylender Sukhilala. Incidentally Kanhaiyalal had played the role of Sukhilala in Aurat as well!

It is a well-known story that while shooting for the film, Nargis was trapped amidst lit haystacks. As the flames got higher and higher, Sunil Dutt playing her rebellious son, Birju, in the film ran through the fire and rescued her. He proposed to her and Nargis married Sunil Dutt and quit films after marriage. She did lend her voice and we do see her silhouette in Sunil Dutt's 'one actor movie monument' Yaadein (1964) and she did make a comeback of sorts expertly playing a woman with a split personality in Raat Aur Din (1967) winning the National Award for the same.

Mother India released in 1957 was greatly lauded by both the public and critics. To quote Filmfare in its review in the issue of November 22, 1957...

"Every once in a while comes a motion picture which helps the the industry to cover the mile to the milestone. Mehboob's magnum opus, Mother India, which was released in the fortnight is one such film."

Even the hard to please Baburao Patel who had panned some of Mehboob's earlier films mercilessly had to admit...

Mehboob's Mother India is an unforgettable epic...the greatest picture produced in India during the forty and odd years of filmmaking in this country. In its epic sweep it is perhaps as great as Gone With The Wind produced by Hollywood but it is greater than the Hollywood picture in theme and spirit, for Mother India portrays the eternal story of the soil - the mother of countless millions of human beings."

Mother India's spectacular success was ironically noted in Vijay Anand's Kala Bazaar (1960) when Dev Anand is seen selling tickets in black for Mother India's premier! The Film became the first Indian Film to be nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Film Category and at the 1958 Academy Awards lost out to another masterpiece Federico Fellini's Nights of Caberia by a solitary vote at

Mother India

Palash Biswas

(Contact: Palash C Biswas, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata-700110, India)

mother India has been a favourite film in our peasant family. With Do Bigha jameen this film portrays the Rural India in the same way as depicted by Munshi Prem Chand in his epic novel godan. I first saw the film in my childhood. I enjoyed the film anytime whenevr it was telecasted on small screen as I never miss an opportunity to see Teesri Kasam. Recently I saw Mother India once again and it seems to be the most relevent film till this date, as I feel. No less than Twenty thousand farmers died victimised by Globalistion since 1998. Bidarbh has becom famous for suicides. suicide by a farmer does not stun any one today. It is a dull routine of everyday life in Rural India. I find a new meaning of Samu`s leaving his family and the fight launched by his wife , the mother India. The bleeding continues and no river , no ocean in this world seems to sustain without the blood of peasants worldwide. This is globalisation. Is any one interested to do a remake of Mother India in the Sez context as they have done so many times?

The stotry line:
Radha (Nargis) now an old woman remembers her past. She remembers her married life. The family has to work extremely hard to pay off the moneylender Sukhilala (Kanhaiyalal). Her husband (Raj Kumar) loses both his arms in an accident and feeling useless abandons the family. Alone, Radha has to raise her children while fending off financial as well as sexual pressures from Sukhilala. One son dies in a flood, and in later years one son Ramu (Rajendra Kumar) grows to be a dutiful son while the other Birju (Sunil Dutt) becomes a rebel committed to direct, violent action. Finally to preserve the honour of the village, Radha puts an end to Birju's rebellious activities by shooting him down.

Until recently, before satellite television changed viewing habits, Mehboob Khan's Mother India (1957), could boast the remarkable distinction of having been constantly in distribution since its first release. Rooted both in Hindu mythology and in the collective experience of a newly independent nation-state on the brink of industrialization and social change, the film, starring screen legends like Nargis, Sunil Dutt and Rajendra Kumar, is a family melodrama that moves inexorably towards tragedy and renewal.The most important film of its time and now a national epic, Mother India portrayed rural life as the true 'essence' of India. The heroine, Radha, embodied the moral values and social customs that form the basis of traditional Indian society. Nargis Dutt played a role that no one could repeat. Not even our darlings like Shabana azmi, Smita Patil or konkana sensharma. Hitherto nargis played typical raj kapoor romantic films and she had been best known as in pair. She felt the pain, pangs and passion of real indian rural woman. She challanges goddess laxmi, ` Kabhi Maa Banke dekho’. Her cry is an eternal cry of mothre India, ` Mere Bacche Bhookhe hai ( My children are Hungry). Well, the real mother India is also crying all the time that her childre are starving. Only intellects like Mahashweta devi, Medha, Arundhati and a section of Kolkata Intellegentsia seem to have listened the cry. Others who use art, literature and culture as a best tool to promote prostitution, are quite detached. best examples are Sunil Gango, Saumitra chatterjee, Mrinal sen, amartya sen and Md Yunus. Who remained silent during all the turmoil in singur and nandigram, have come out of den to save the brahmin Pustak Mela.

Rajkumar played not a lesser role as he reprents the helplessness of Indian peasants. He wipes the sindoor on her wife`s forehead. Better expressesed is the suicide trend , globalisation and SEZ econmy, in this single shot.

Though we don1t face any resistance as we see in Benegal films Ankur, Nishant and Manthan. Shrikakulam , Telengana or Naxalbari had not been the inspiration for Mehbbob. We may not find nandigram or singur in Mother India, but we definitely see shadow of Bidarbh and Kalahandi all the way. Life struggle of Inda`s rural underclass population is honestly portrayed without any political dimention.Radha stood as a symbol of Indian womanhood and a new independent nation.In 1947 India gained independence from British rule. The country was caught between the need to modernise and continue the technological advances of the last two decades, and the need to maintain traditional moral values and avoid cultural decline.Cities were at the centre of many social and economic changes. Seen as the source of employment and wealth they attracted thousands of migrant workers from the villages. In this period of transition, films looked at the question of national identity and what the meaning of being Indian meant. They explored issues of modernity versus tradition, of urban life versus the rural ideal. Cities were projected as corrupt and evil while villages were seen to preserve social and moral values.

You may witness the sets of Mother India real anywhere in India thanks to NRI Ruling Brahminical classes whic have enslaved the Rural India by Hindutva politics of different brands in cludin Left, Right and centrist. Just vist bidarbh. You may chose singur. Why Nandigram also seems to be very appropriate set for mothre India. Will Mrina sen, Gautam Ghosh, rRtuparna, Aparna sen, Shyam benegal, Maniratnam, Adoor, anyone would like to shoot live?

Do all the different facets of her suffering allow "Mother India" to reach a moment of absolute clarity at the end? Is she exhibiting a healthy anger, or is it the sentimentalised anger of those who like to believe that there is nothing more ennobling than a victim who accepts her fate. These ambiguities, along with the lushly beautiful image of Nargis toiling away in glorious cinematic colour, are what make the myth of "Mother India" so compelling. In a poor country it is almost a consolation to be a victim. Women have been persuaded to play this role till it has almost become a hereditary right to become widows, to become "satis" to become temple prostitutes, to be labelled as "unclean", or "barren" or to be regarded as property to be bartered as the system demands. This type of anger fragments a society and destroys an individual into thinking that he or she is just a helpless plaything for the gods, or economic forces to control or destroy, or the next well meaning NGO to bachao. It is quite the opposite of the positive anger that a Vivekananda, or a Gandhi, or any of the social reformers of the pre-Independence era, were able to instil.

REACHING villages in eastern Midnapur, 120km (75 miles) south of Kolkata, where a branch of the Ganges runs into the sea, has become an ordeal. Trenches have been cut into the approach roads and bricks and palm-trunks piled over them; no vehicle bigger than a motorcycle can pass. Beside the barricades, black rags hang from bamboo flagstaffs—in honour, the locals say, of half a dozen villagers killed this month in a battle with the state government's goons. At the entrance to one village, Gar Chakraberia, a burnt-out police van bears their epitaph: “We will never let industry take our motherland.”The cause of the conflict is a plan by West Bengal's Communist government to grant land to an Indonesian conglomerate, the Salim Group, which wants to build petrochemical plants over Midnapur's fishponds and paddy fields. The group has been promised 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) in the form of two special economic zones (SEZs)—havens for export-driven industry, with light taxation and other perks. The government hopes that, as in China, SEZs will boost the development of infrastructure and manufacturing. Since it passed a law offering improved terms for investors in the zones last year, 63 have been approved, 237 have been all but approved and over 400 are being considered.

The film, Mother india begins with the finishing of a water canal to the village set in the present. Radha (Nargis), as the 'mother' of the village is asked to open the canal and remembers back to her past when she was newly married, mirroring the new independence of India.The wedding between Radha and Shamu (Raaj Kumar) was paid for by Radha's mother in law who raised a loan from the moneylender, Sukhilala. This event starts the spiral of poverty and hardship which Radha endures. The conditions of the loan are disputed but the village elders decide in favour of the moneylender after which Shamu and Radha are forced to pay three quarters of their crop as interest on the loan of 500 rupees.Whilst trying to bring more of their land into use to alleviate their poverty, Shamu's arms are crushed by a boulder. He is shamed by his helplessness and is humiliated by others in the village, deciding that he is no use to his family he leaves and does not return. Soon after this, Radha's mother in law dies.

Radha continues to work in the fields with her children and gives birth again. Sukhilala offers to help alleviate her poverty in return for Radha marrying him, but she refuses to "sell herself". A storm sweeps through the village destroying the harvest and killing Radha's youngest child - the villagers start to migrate but decide to stay and rebuild on the urging of Radha.

The film then skips forward several years to when Radha's two surviving children, Birju and Ramu, are young men. Birju, embittered by the exactions of Sukhilala since he was a child takes out his frustrations by pestering the village girls, especially Sukhilala's daughter. Ramu, by contrast, has a calmer temper and is married soon after. He becomes a father but his wife is soon absorbed into the cycle of poverty in the family.

Birju's anger finally becomes dangerous and, after being provoked, attacks Sukhilala and his daughter as well as violently lashing out at his family. He is chased out of the village and becomes a bandit. On the day of the weeding of Sukhilala's daughter, Birju returns to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and takes his daughter - but Radha, who had promised that Birju would not do harm, shoots Birju who dies in her arms. The film ends with her opening of the canal and reddish water flowing into the fields.

this story is repeated again and again. Now it has got the global dimention, as not only the feudal lord, this time the entire state machinery is invoved to evict Indian peasants from their land an life.

Real Double speak may not be compared with mother India at all. Leader of one of the major constituents of the Left Front, Mr Debabrata Biswas is the general secretary of the All-India Forward Bloc, the party founded by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939. Holding the party post for the third consecutive term since 1997, sixty-one-year-old Mr Biswas entered politics as a student leader.
A Rajya Sabha member for the third term, Mr Biswas hails from Bagnam village, just 10 km from Singur, the Hooghly village where the West Bengal government had to use the police to control protests over land acquisition for the Tata small car project.
Singur received nationwide attention and brought Left Front unity under strain.
Many Left Front leaders, including Mr Biswas, complained that the confusion arose because of lack of transparency in the land acquisition process. But despite the Left supporters have come out against SEZ in Nandigram, the leaders of the left all around are out to save the front, the governments in states and centre and the interests of the ruling classes.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.

Tagore wrote Bahart Tirtha, Jana gana Mana and dui Bigha Jami. Bankim wrote Vande Mataram and anando Math- all depicting what India was under Colonial rule. Mother India is essentially a story of free India. And what a freedom have we got. The peasants are free to commit suicide and the poor population living under poverty line has got the right to succumb anytime. What sovereignity have we got that we follow every dictate from Washingto and World Bank and IMF play non constitutional agents to run the government alligning with foriegn capital and corporations with a sole aim to protect US interests anywhere in this world.

Nature and man seem to be different. different are the polity and society. We have surrenedered our culture and laguages, folk and music, arts and crafts the entire production system. Kanhaialal would not have played the roles played by Dr Manmohan singh, Buddhdev Bhattacharya, Left leaders and chief ministers of India. In Mehboob's famous film, "Mother India" the most electrifying moment comes at the end, when Nargis, Indian cinema's most enduring heroine, picks up a gun and kills her own favourite son Birju, who has become a dacoit, when he comes to take revenge against the moneylender at whose hands his mother has suffered all her life. It is more than 40 years since "Mother India" was shown in 1957, and few people will remember the extraordinary hold that the film had on the imagination of the viewers. It was in part a response to the trauma of Partition, where like the Birju figure, one part of the country had turned against the Motherland. In another light, it was an epic poem to the suffering image of the Indian woman as exemplified in the transformation of Nargis, from a beautiful bride, to the anguished wife, mother, tiller of the soil, a single woman whose body is still desired by the greedy moneylender and finally the saviour of the village, who goes against her innermost instincts to kill her son. You couldn't get more reactionary than that. It's a triumph of the patriarchy where even the most oppressed of victims turns around and supports the old feudal order. There could be no bigger sacrifice than that of a Mother killing her own son for the greater good of society, even a society that has just ground her into the soil.

Not only Singur or Nandigram or Barasat or Bhangad or Haripur, not only Maharashtra and uttar Pradesh, now Punjab farmers also have lodged their protest agaist the murder of Rural India. Farmers of punajab clashed on Wednesday with Police in Barnala to save their green fields.
Protesting against forcible acquisition of the farmers’ land and seeking its restoration, activists of various farmer bodies today clashed with the Police in Barnala. The farmers allege that the government was forcibly acquiring farmers’ lands and protecting the interests of big business houses. They have also accused the government of forcibly handing over 376 acres of land in three Barnala villages to Trident under the same policy. On the other hand, on Tuesday, January 30, 2007,Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has issued a fresh ultimatum on Singur.It was her first public appearance since she was released from hospital after her 25-day hunger strike last month. The Trinamool leader warned that if the Tatas and the West Bengal government did not do a rethink on the Tata Motors factory at Singur within the next 10 days, she would not be responsible for the trouble that was inevitable.

Every Tata has his legacy and Ratan Tata, the man with a rare mix of grace, composure and steely nerves, has created his own by winning the Corus battle against odds just as he steered the people's car project at Singur in West Bengal. Since taking the reins of the $21.9 billion Tata business empire in 1991, Ratan Tata, 69, has only steeled the group's reputation of integrity, goodwill and competence. To the Indian polity, Tata, who is heading the Investment Commission, is an apolitical policymaker, while to corporate India, he is a great visionary and for the group, he is an outstanding entrepreneur. The takeover of the Anglo-Dutch steelmaker is especially close to the heart of Ratan Tata, as it coincides with Tata Steel's 100th year. Tata Steel was founded in 1907 despite hurdles from the then British colonial masters. But it took a lot of perseverance on his part before the Corus deal was finally clinched.

The last five years have seen Tatas emerging as India's biggest acquirer of global entities, adding one company after another to the kitty of the group, which otherwise is also a major expansion drive with an investment of over Rs 180,000 crore (Rs 1,800 billion) in the next 5-7 years.

Therefore, it doesn't come as a surprise that he is many a times asked to lead corporate giants, along with the Prime Minister, to showcase India as an investment destination.

Mamata Banerjee on Sunady accused the West Bengal government of having "double standards", saying it was enforcing prohibitory orders on common people at Singur in Hooghly district while helping the Tatas go ahead with the work for setting up their small car factory there.
"Everyone is equal before the law. Then why is it that commoners are not being allowed to enter Singur through enforcement orders under section 144 CrPC," she said.
"While there is one law for the common people why then there should be a separate provision for the Tatas," she said adding "We are opposed to setting up industries on fertile agricultural land. Let the industries come up on non-agricultural land."
She said "provocative" statements of the ruling party leaders and the role of the "callous" administration had created the impasse at Nandigram in east Midnapur district where the opposition parties are protesting, vowing to oppose any move for acquisition of farmland for the proposed SEZ of Indonesian business house Salim Group.
"Similarly, the government attitude is responsible for the present situation at Singur," she said. Banerjee was reacting to the clashes between Trinamool supporters and the police near Singur today during a demonstration to protest the start of work on the Tatas` small car project. The Trinamool chief observed a 25-day hunger strike last month demanding re-location of the plant, while social activist Medha Patkar also made repeated attempts to reach Singur where prohibitory orders were clamped by the administration following initial protests. Official sources had earlier said the prohibitory orders were in force as it was apprehended that some groups opposed to farmland acquisition might "instigate trouble".

Besides the forcible land acquisition for SEZs, the farmers allege that it is the government’s failure to reach out to them at the grassroots that has hurt the community the most. The farmers said they would not allow anyone to step into their land and would continue with the stir.

Meanwhile Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus says SEZ policy is sustainable > He follows the Amarty Sen linewhich is quite in vogue in Asian countries. Economics has always been a tool for capitalism as Adam smith invented the genre.he case for free trade rests on the age-old principle of comparative advantage, the idea that countries are better off when they export the things they are best at producing, and import the rest. Most mainstream economists accept the principle, but even they have serious differences of opinion on the balance of potential benefits and actual costs from trade and on the importance of social protection for the poor. Free traders believe that the rising tide of international specialization and investment lifts all boats. Others point out that many poor people lack the capacity to adjust, retool and relocate with changing market conditions. These scholars argue that the benefits of specialization materialize in the long run, over which people and resources are assumed to be fully mobile, whereas the adjustments can cause pain in the short run.

The debate among economists is a paragon of civility compared withthe one taking place in the streets. Antiglobalizers' central claim is that globalization is making the rich richer and the poor poorer; proglobalizers assert that it actually helps the poor. But if one looks at the factual evidence, the matter is rather more complicated. On the basis of household survey data collected by different agencies, the World Bank estimates the fraction of the population in developing countries that falls below the $1-a-day poverty line (at 1993 prices)--an admittedly crude but internationally comparable level. By this measure, extreme poverty is declining in the aggregate. The trend is particularly pronounced in East, South and Southeast Asia. Poverty has declined sharply in China, India and Indonesia--countries that have long been characterized by massive rural poverty and that together account for about half the total population of develop­-ing countries. Between 1981 and 2001 the percentage of rural people living on less than $1 a day decreased from 79 to 27 percent in China, 63 to 42 percent in India, and 55 to 11 percent in Indonesia.

Even as the farmers protest against special economic zone (SEZ) proposals in the country, Nobel Laureate and Chief Architect of Grameen Bank and the main micro-financing body in Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus said on Tuesday that Indian SEZ policy is sustainable in the long term.

"SEZ policy is definitely sustainable for India. There is a limit to development which agriculture can achieve. For a jump in growth, industrialisation is necessary. You have to make a choice between agriculture and industrialisation," Prof Yunus said on the sidelines of a conference.

The question is on which land these projects are being set up, he said, adding the protests led by farmers will fade away if they are convinced that their 'barren land' will be put to productive use.

"The first step to win their favour is to make them evacuate the barren land with decency and respect by giving adequate compensation," Prof Yunus added.

Since its inception, the policy to allow companies to set up SEZs in the country has been under fire from different bodies, creating doubts about its success.

Salim Group SEZ project in Nandigram village in East Midnapore district of West Bengal is being opposed by the farmers.

Well Yunus saheb, you may know better.

In 1993, anticipating a U.S. ban on imports of products made using child labor, the garment industry in Bangladesh dismissed an estimated 50,000 children. UNICEF and local aid groups investigated what happened to them. About 10,000 children went back to school, but the rest ended up in much inferior occupations, including stone breaking and child prostitution. That does not excuse the appalling working conditions in the sweatshops, let alone the cases of forced or unsafe labor, but advocates must recognize the severely limited existing opportunities for the poor and the possible unintended consequences of "fair trade" policies.
The Local Roots of Poverty
Integration into the international economy brings not only opportunities but also problems. Even when new jobs are better than the old ones, the transition can be wrenching. Most poor countries provide very little effective social protection to help people who have lost their jobs and not yet found new ones. Moreover, vast numbers of the poor work on their own small farms or for household enterprises. The major constraints they usually face are domestic, such as lack of access to credit, poor infrastructure, venal government officials and insecure land rights. Weak states, unaccountable regimes, lopsided wealth distribution, and inept or corrupt politicians and bureaucrats often combine to block out the opportunities for the poor. Opening markets without relieving these domestic constraints forces people to compete with one hand tied behind their back. The result can be deepened poverty.

Yunus sheb is quite detached in every respect whatever happens in Bangladesh and in this Sub Continent. he does not stand with Bangla Inteeligentsia as same thing is seen in case of another prominent Economist, the Indian Amartya sen.The experiences of these and other countries demonstrate that antipoverty programs need not be blocked by the forces of globalization. There is no "race to the bottom" in which countries must abandon social programs to keep up economically; in fact, social and economic goals can be mutually supportive. Land reform, expansion of credit and services for small producers, retraining and income support for displaced workers, public-works programs for the unemployed, and provision of basic education and health can enhance the productivity of workers and farmers and thereby contribute to a country's global competitiveness. Such programs may require a rethinking of budget priorities in those nations and a more accountable political and administrative framework, but the obstacles are largely domestic. Conversely, closing the economy to international trade does not reduce the power of the relevant vested interests: landlords, politicians and bureaucrats, and the rich who enjoy government subsidies. Thus, globalization is not the main cause of developing countries' problems, contrary to the claim of critics of globalization--just as globalization is often not the main solution to these problems, contrary to the claim of overenthusiastic free traders.

Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, who appeared before the public on Monday for the first time a month after she ended her fast over Singur, announced her support for the Nandigram villagers.

. This week the government froze the approval process. SEZs have been attacked on many fronts: by social activists, opposition politicians and even some government members. But the fiercest critics are those defending the right of farmers to their plots—what even Palaniappan Chidambaram, India's finance minister, calls “the sacred tie between the tiller and the land”.

In a poor agrarian country, the charge of bullying farmers to pander to big business can be a winding blow, especially as the ruling coalition, led by the Congress Party, relies on the Communist parties for its parliamentary majority. Not coincidentally, West Bengal has been ruled for 30 years by the Communists, who until a few years ago opposed most industrialisation. The West Bengal opposition is now relishing the chance to accuse the commies of cosying up to capitalists at the expense of the peasantry. “In a Communist state, sir! The poor peasants are being shot with bullets by the Communist party police,” says Madan Mitra, a leader of the opposition Trinamul Congress Party. With elections looming in four other states, including the most populous, Uttar Pradesh, the central government will not rush to unblock SEZs.

In India, Gandhiji was able to mobilise the latent anger of a colonised society into a weapon of peaceful resistance. By involving the women of the country in the freedom movement he accomplished through the moral force of Satyagraha what the two World Wars had done for the West. Women gained a professional status. They could compete with men on the factory floor in the industrialised countries. While in India they could aspire to the more elite professions such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, writers and cultural activists. For such a rigidly stratified society it was perhaps to be expected that even the liberation of women should take place along class ines.

In this entertaining and insightful examination of the classic, Gayatri Chatterjee, winner of the President's Gold Medal for the Best Book on Cinema, outlines the film's eventful production history, the ambitious vision of its director, and the brilliance of its stars. She also analyses its epic-style narrative, the mythological underpinnings, the many references to the history of a country in transition, and its relation to post-Independence culture and politics, to show why Mother India is a cornerstone of Indian cinema.
Starring
Nargis, Raj Kumar, Sunil Dutt, Rajendra Kumar, Kanhaiyalal

Story and Script
Mehboob Khan

Dialogue
Vajahat Mirza, S. Ali Raza

Cinematography
Faredoon Irani

Editing
Shamsudin Kadri

Art Direction
V.H. Palnitkar

Choreography
Chiman Seth

Lyrics
Shakeel Badayuni

Music
Naushad

Directed by
Mehboob Khan

The film

Mother India is the ultimate tribute to Indian Womanhood! This epic saga of the sufferings of an Indian peasant woman has an inherent and perennial appeal, being typical of the Indian situation. So tremendous was its success that the film is in fact a reference point in the long-suffering mother genre and is like an Indian Gone With the Wind (1939).

The film is an opulent colour remake of Mehboob's earlier austere Black and White film Aurat (1940). Raised in a village himself, Mehboob himself was familiar with rural life, its customs and manners, its soil, seasons, sufferings and joys and creates a totally Indian experience in milieu, detail, characters and dramatic incidents.However Mehboob raises all these elements to make a highly charged film that is larger than life and one that admittedly takes a totally romanticized look at rural India.

The film makes heavy use of psychoanalytic and other kinds of symbolism and nationalist allegory. (The peasants forming a chorus outlining a map of India) In fact everything about the film is highly charged right down to the strong, earthy central performance of Nargis. The film represents the pinnacle of her career and won her the Best actress award at the prestigious Karlovy Vary festival. To quote the Filmindia review of the film...

"Remove Nargis and there is no Mother India. Nargis is both the body and soul of the picture. Never before has this girl given such a superb and dynamic performance. Nargis reaches such rare heights of emotion that it will be difficult to find another artiste in the entire film world today to compare with her. Nargis lives the role better than Radha could have lived it."

Other strong performances in the film come from Sunil Dutt as the wayward son Birju (Initially Dilip Kumar and Hollywood star Sabu were in the running for this role and it is said that Dilip Kumar made Ganga Jamuna (1961) with himself as the wayward brother as an answer to Mother India), Master Sajid as the young Birju and Kanhaiyalal as the creepily, evil moneylender Sukhilala. Incidentally Kanhaiyalal had played the role of Sukhilala in Aurat as well!

It is a well-known story that while shooting for the film, Nargis was trapped amidst lit haystacks. As the flames got higher and higher, Sunil Dutt playing her rebellious son, Birju, in the film ran through the fire and rescued her. He proposed to her and Nargis married Sunil Dutt and quit films after marriage. She did lend her voice and we do see her silhouette in Sunil Dutt's 'one actor movie monument' Yaadein (1964) and she did make a comeback of sorts expertly playing a woman with a split personality in Raat Aur Din (1967) winning the National Award for the same.

Mother India released in 1957 was greatly lauded by both the public and critics. To quote Filmfare in its review in the issue of November 22, 1957...

"Every once in a while comes a motion picture which helps the the industry to cover the mile to the milestone. Mehboob's magnum opus, Mother India, which was released in the fortnight is one such film."

Even the hard to please Baburao Patel who had panned some of Mehboob's earlier films mercilessly had to admit...

Mehboob's Mother India is an unforgettable epic...the greatest picture produced in India during the forty and odd years of filmmaking in this country. In its epic sweep it is perhaps as great as Gone With The Wind produced by Hollywood but it is greater than the Hollywood picture in theme and spirit, for Mother India portrays the eternal story of the soil - the mother of countless millions of human beings."

Mother India's spectacular success was ironically noted in Vijay Anand's Kala Bazaar (1960) when Dev Anand is seen selling tickets in black for Mother India's premier! The Film became the first Indian Film to be nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Film Category and at the 1958 Academy Awards lost out to another masterpiece Federico Fellini's Nights of Caberia by a solitary vote at

Indo - Russian _US Bermuda Triangle

Palash Biswas

(Contact: Palash Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Kanan, Gostokanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700100, India. Phone: 91-33-25659551).

It is International racial war against the poor and underclasses of the third world countries that Ruling classes worldwide have developed corporate globalisation to annihilate the indigenous production system and culture. INDO _ Russia _ US Nuclear triangle enters the scene to destroy Man, Nature and specifically Rural India. This is going to prove a Bermuda triangle.

Since Independence the Ruling classes in India trying its best to pose a secular democratic welfare state. Mrs Indira Gandhi was the first prime minister to launch a poverty eradication programme adapting to soviet model of development. With disintegration of Soviet Union, the dominant culture of Catse Hindu Nazi ruling classes in India represented by Nara Simha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Dr Manmohan Singh rejected the soviet model and the policy of open market and liberalisation in a global world shaped well. Even when 25 thousand peasants have committed suicide and the nation faces a civil war on Special Economic Zone (SEZ) well represented by Nandi Gram and Singur the ruling classes represented by Left as well as right do not fail to speak on poverty eradication.The multilateral crusaders against poverty seem remarkably unconcerned about the fact that their past poverty reduction efforts have had little effect in reducing absolute or even relative poverty. On the contrary, most development and poverty reduction programmes continue to push rapid economic growth and free market reforms as solutions to poverty, which have resulted in increased debt and greater impoverishment among a significant proportion of the beneficiaries.
The solution to past indebtedness appears to be more debt, since poor countries need to “grow” themselves out of poverty and in order to do so, they must import technology and know-how that they do not posses in order to expand productivity for export markets that they cannot control. Today, the poor are sending more money to the rich than the other way around, and all in the name of poverty eradication! The struggle is going on, from Seattle to Doha, in different forms but with the same content: the solidarity of developing countries. This solidarity may be their sole weapon in the striving for a common goal of fair trade, for the sake of an inclusive development, the development of all people. The developing countries wish this round to be a Round of Development. However, this can only be achieved when they themselves unite and struggle.

New Delhi always forget that Indian constitution defines India as a Union of states. We are not a nation but we strife to be a nation all these years rejecting all nationalities, identities and languages. Ruling classes always tried to deprive the eighty five percent of majority population consisting of SC, ST, OBC, OBC and minorities.We simply forget the destiny of Soviet Disintegration as USSR was itself a federation of nationality.

Brahaminical Hindutva has converted the majority non Brahmin population slaves of politicalised religion without bloodshed and that is an example of NON Violence advocated by Bapu.

Reminiscent of Indo Soviet Relations during intense Cold War period Russian President arrived in New Delhi.President Vladimir Putin sealed an agreement Thursday in New Delhi for Russia to build at least four more nuclear reactors in India, a project potentially worth up to 8 billion euros ($10.35 billion). But Russia will only be able to pull it off if India is freed from international restrictions on nuclear cooperation. And if the restrictions are lifted, the United States and France are likely to compete with Russia for a share of the vast nuclear energy market in India's booming economy. Mind you, Indo US nuclear deal finalised recently has not been implemented as yet. It seems Indo - Russian diplomatic ploy targets to challenge the unipolar global market just sake of existence.We remember how a cartoon by R.K. Laxman that derides the deflated U.S. ego and failed foreign policy of US President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger (seen in crashed car) for supporting the Pakistani military Relations between India and the United States came to an all-time low during the early 1970s. Despite reports of atrocities in East Pakistan, and despite being told—most notably in the Blood telegram—of 'genocidal' activities being perpetrated by Pakistani forces, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and U.S. President Richard Nixon did nothing to discourage then Pakistani President Yahya Khan and the Pakistan Army. Kissinger was particularly concerned about Soviet expansion into South Asia as a result of a treaty of friendship that had recently been signed between India and the Soviet Union, and sought to demonstrate to the People's Republic of China the value of a tacit alliance with the United States.

Complying with US interests, India has actively participated in several UN peacekeeping missions. India is currently the largest troop contributor to the UN and currently seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

But this statement by a Russian diplomat sounds something different.

Yesipova, the Atomstroiexport spokeswoman, would not name a price for the new reactors in India but said they would cost approximately the same as similar reactors to be built in Bulgaria. The company won a tender last year to build two reactors in Bulgaria for 4 billion euros ($5.18 billion), she said.
"The Indian economy is growing rapidly. The country is choking from a lack of energy resources. Four reactors is a drop in the ocean," Pikayev said. "The Americans will get a portion of the contracts as gratitude for the lifting of the restrictions. The Americans will get a lot."

Prafulla Bidwai writes: `After signing the "New Framework" defence deal, which virtually turns
India into the United States' subordinate ally, New Delhi has reached
a nuclear cooperation agreement with Washington, which mocks India's
stated policy. The UPA's Common Minimum Programme explicitly said
India would take "leadership" in "promoting universal nuclear
disarmament." Instead, India has joined the Nuclear Club, and
abandoned disarmament. For decades, India condemned the present Club-dominated global
nuclear order as "atomic apartheid." It has joined that very
apartheid regime. This knocks India's credibility and exposes her
colossal hypocrisy in hiding her nuclear ambitions behind high
moral posturing -- at least since 1988 when Rajiv Gandhi
made a thoughtful global disarmament proposal.’

Boosting trade ties and securing energy deals was a crucial part of the agenda on the first day of talks Thursday during the Russian president's two-day visit to India. A joint statement adopted following the talks said the parties were working on increasing bilateral commodity turnover to $10 billion from the current $3 billion by 2010. "By preliminary estimates, [commodity turnover] grew 20% in 2006, and our task is to expand business interaction and look for new effective models of cooperation," Russian leader Vladimir Putin said after meeting with Manmohan Singh.
The nine documents signed by India and Russia Thursday are as follows. Russia agreed to build four more nuclear reactors for India's Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern province of Tamil Nadu and other plants, in addition to the two units already under construction. India's National Thermal Power Corporation and a Russian-Indian consortium signed an agreement on the technical and commercial terms of a contract to build hydropower facilities in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

Instead of acknowledging the failures and traps of trade, the trade ministers of big capitalist countries keep on urging the application of free trade principles in all fields of global trade, in rich and poor countries alike, leaving too little room for national strategies and putting aside such important social issues as environment and labour. Furthermore, they no longer respect the commitments they themselves previously made to ending their economic protection policies. They intentionally ignore the promises of giving special and differential treatment to poor countries. Obviously the increasing financial, investment and trade integration is demanding an equal and democratic form of economic management in the whole world.

A recent report by the World Bank itself reveals the catastrophes on the globe. Rwanda’s maternal mortality rate is 1/40, 200 times higher than that of rich countries. Within the past decade, the life expectancy of Ugandan has reduced by 5 years, and that of South Africa fallen by as many as 14 years. This is caused by HIV-AIDS. The continent's AIDS victims cannot afford the medicines by the pharmaceutical TNCs enjoying production and distribution monopolies under the umbrella of the WTO's rules on intellectual property rights. This partiality raises doubts about the legality and legitimacy of the WTO.

An Oxfam's report on Fair Trade in April 2002 reveals that over 40% of the world's population live in of low-income countries, but these 40% occupy exactly 3% of the world trade. Within the past decade, 5% of the world's poorest have lost nearly a quarter of their real income, while 5% of the world's richest risen by 12%. Out of every US$ 100 brought about by world export, US$ 97 flow to high-income countries, leaving on average only US$ 3 for low-income countries. For every 1 assistance dollar to poor countries, they rob back US$ 2 through unfair trade. Unfair trade takes US$ 100 from poor countries every year. If Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America each could increase by 1% in the world trade, 128 million people would escape poverty. One more per-cent of Africa's volume in the world's trade could generate US$ 70 billion, which is 5 times bigger than the amount of assistance and debt reduction given to this continent.

Poverty rhetoric has supplied institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Asian Development Bank (AD and many of the U.N agencies with an effective set of tools by which they can not only deflect increasing public scrutiny of their actions, but also, they can build consensus among their potential detractors by claiming a shared and common higher purpose, and by finding new ways to channel financial resources to these would-be detractors, in pursuit of their assumed, higher, common goals. In 1998-1999, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) declared their respective renewed commitments towards poverty reduction, ie., continuing neo-liberal reforms and enhanced structural adjustment under the new names of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) and the Poverty Growth Reduction Facility (PRGF). An additional joint World Bank- IMF instrument was created: the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) to enhance Bank-Fund collaborations, especially in countries considered eligible for the enhanced HIPC intitiative. rlier, the World Bank had already forged alliances with the UNDP in developing poverty reduction strategies, and setting indicators for monitoring the progress of poverty reduction goals and targets.

During the Cold War, India adopted a foreign policy of not aligning itself with any major power bloc. However, India developed close ties with the Soviet Union and received extensive military support from the U.S.S.R.. The end of the Cold War significantly affected Indian foreign policy, as it did for much of the world. The country now seeks to strengthen its diplomatic and economic ties with the United States, the People's Republic of China, European Union, Japan, Israel, Latin America, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. India also has close ties with the African Union, the Commonwealth states and the Arab World. India continues to have strong a military relationship with Russia.The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had major repercussions for Indian foreign policy. Substantial trade with the former Soviet Union plummeted after the Soviet collapse and has yet to recover. Longstanding military supply relationships were similarly disrupted due to questions over financing, although Russia continues to be India's largest supplier of military systems and spare parts.

The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile is jointly developed by India and the Russian Federation.Russia and India have decided not to renew the 1971 Indo-Soviet Peace and Friendship Treaty and have sought to follow what both describe as a more pragmatic, less ideological relationship. Russian President Yeltsin's visit to India in January 1993 helped cement this new relationship. Ties have grown stronger with President Vladimir Putin's 2004 visit. The pace of high-level visits has since increased, as has discussion of major defence purchases.

With Russian President Vladimir Putin the chief guest, India Friday showcased the cutting edge Russian weaponry in its arsenal as it celebrated its 58th Republic Day with a grand parade that seamlessly blended military might with an impressive display of cultural diversity.It had the desired effect as Putin repeatedly nodded his as the jointly developed BrahMos supersonic cruise missile and the T-72 main battle tanks that have been purchased from Russia rolled down Rajpath during the two-hour parade.In fact, such was the keenness with which Putin watched the proceedings that President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who took the salute, repeatedly turned to him to point out the finer points of the pageant - whether relating to weaponry, the uniforms of the marching contingents, or the diversity depicted through the many tableaux on view. In the past, there has often been criticism that the Republic Day parade is not so much a display of India's military prowess but more of its foreign shopping list. It was just the opposite this time around, with the only foreign equipment on view, besides the T-72 tanks, being an unmanned aerial vehicle -.Instead, the parade, commanded by Maj. Gen. P.C. Bhardwaj, featured a vast array of indigenously developed equipment like missiles, radars for locating hostile weapons and aircraft, bridge-laying tanks, a battlefield communication system based on cellular technology, a mobile decontamination facility for a nuclear, chemical and biological - environment, and an infantry combat vehicle -.

Much of all this has been contributed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation -, whose functioning is now being probed by a government panel after criticism that its projects were suffering from time and cost overruns.

Since the end of the Cold War era, India-US relations have improved dramatically. This has largely been fostered by the fact that the US and India are both democracies and have a large and growing trade relationship.During the Gulf War, the economy of India went through an extremely difficult phase. The Government of India liberalized the Indian economy. After the break up of the Soviet Union, India started looking for new allies and tried improving diplomatic relations with the members of the NATO particularly the United States, Canada, France and Germany. In 1992, India established formal diplomatic relations with Israel.In the mid-1990s, India tried to attract world attention towards the Pakistan backed terrorism in Kashmir. The Kargil War resulted in a major diplomatic victory for India. The United States and European Union recognized the fact that Pakistani military had illegally infiltrated into Indian territory and pressurized Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil. Several anti-India terrorist groups based in Pakistan were labelled as terrorist groups by the United States and European Union.In 1998, India tested nuclear weapons which resulted in several U.S., Japanese and European sanctions on India.

Putin met Thursday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The letter of intent was signed in their presence by Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko and his Indian counterpart, Anil Kakodka.

Under the agreement, Russia would build four reactors for the Kundankulam nuclear power station on the Indian Ocean where it is already building two similar 1,000-megawatt reactors, the Federal Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement. The agreement also would give Russia an option to build more reactors at other sites, the agency said.

At a news conference after the talks, Singh thanked Russia for its assistance in developing the nuclear energy sector and support in the efforts to lift the international restrictions. "Energy security is the most important of the emerging dimensions of our strategic partnership," Singh said, Reuters reported. "We look forward to a long-term partnership with Russia in this vital field."

The Nuclear Suppliers Group -- a body of 45 countries that possess nuclear technology and regulate international trade in the field -- banned sales of nuclear fuel, reactors and other technology to India in 1992 in an effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Since then, India has successfully produced its own nuclear bombs.Russia's deal to build the two reactors was signed in 1988, before international restrictions were imposed, said Irina Yesipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroiexport, the state-controlled company carrying out the construction.This contract could give Russia an edge over possible future competitors. The "nuclear power station Kundakulam ... is an example of fruitful cooperation between India and Russia and gives both sides a priceless experience of interaction," Kiriyenko said in New Delhi, his agency's press service reported.

In 2000 and 2001, Russia and France attempted to convince the Nuclear Suppliers Group that the restrictions were pointless, said Anton Khlopkov, deputy director of PIR Center, a nongovernmental organization that monitors nuclear policy.

The United States blocked the proposal at the time, but last month U.S. President George W. Bush signed a bill allowing civilian nuclear trade with India. The United States will now seek a decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to remove the Indian trade restrictions, said Alexander Pikayev, a nuclear issues expert at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations.

Kiriyenko said India deserved to have the restrictions lifted. "This country has an impeccable reputation in terms of nonproliferation," he said.

Pikayev said the restrictions could be lifted this spring, while Khlopkov predicted it was more likely to happen later in the year.

"Everything will depend on the U.S. readiness to cooperate with India," Khlopkov said. "I do not rule out that the U.S. will not hurry a decision until it has chosen sites for its own construction and discussed, at least verbally, the types of reactors."

All 45 countries have to agree for the restrictions to be lifted, Pikayev said. Opponents of nuclear trade with India include Japan and a number of European countries that do not have nuclear weapons, he said. "It is vexing for non-nuclear countries that they had to refuse the possession of nuclear weapons in exchange for the opportunity to develop nuclear energy," he said. "They sacrificed an important prospect for their national security and India didn't."

China, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are also among the opponents, Khlopkov said.

In other energy deals, Rosneft signed a memorandum of understanding with India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation to expand cooperation in Russia and India. The companies have 20 percent each in the Sakhalin-1 project.

Sergei Ivanov, defense minister and deputy prime minister, who was in India earlier in the week, said Russia would also welcome Indian investment into Sakhalin-3.

After the World War II, the three revolutionary upsurges, namely the three movements of world socialism, national liberation in colonised countries and workers' struggle in developed capitalist countries, constituted a synthesized and direct attack to both the stronghold and the backyard of capitalism. The struggle between capitalism and socialism, between the capitalist road and the non-capitalist road became the major contents of the transitional time from capitalism to socialism all over the world. In response, the US, Britain and other capitalist countries sought to establish a new capitalist system to obtain global domination - the ambition the German and Japanese fascists once had failed to realise through war. The new capitalist system was to fulfil these three essential tasks - consolidating and reinforcing the capitalist countries' alliance, of which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation played the pivotal role; taming the Third World countries and bringing them back under the control of imperialism; and terminating the socialist system - the greatest menace to the survival of capitalism. To maintain disparity, no sooner had the war ended than the US and Britain gave birth to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), usually known as the World Band, and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), or the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 1995. These are the three major instruments for capitalism to establish its global economic-financial and trade dominance. The delayed inception of the WTO is due to the inability to form a single market, given the existence, alongside the capitalist system, of the socialist system with totally different sets of rules and modes of production and exchange. Consequently, the US proposed to create a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) instead of an International Trade Organisation (ITO). GATT would constitute a set of rules that covered tariffs reduction, non-tariffs barriers removal and strictly limited room for Government's intervention in private economy and trade. They argued that fast economic growth could only be achieved in such free trade.

From today's vantage point, globalization appears to have been not a new, higher phase in the development of capitalism but a response to the underlying structural crisis of this system of production. Fifteen years since it was trumpeted as the wave of the future, globalization seems to have been less a "brave new phase" of the capitalist adventure than a desperate effort by global capital to escape the stagnation and disequilibria overtaking the global economy in the 1970s and 1980s. The collapse of the centralized socialist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe deflected people's attention from this reality in the early 1990s.Many in progressive circles still think that the task at hand is to "humanize" globalization. Globalization, however, is a spent force. Today's multiplying economic and political conflicts resemble, if anything, the period following the end of what historians refer to as the first era of globalization, which extended from 1815 to the eruption of World War I in 1914. The urgent task is not to steer corporate-driven globalization in a "social democratic" direction but to manage its retreat so that it does not bring about the same chaos and runaway conflicts that marked its demise in that earlier era.

While corporate-driven globalization may be down, it is not out. Though discredited, many pro-globalization neoliberal policies remain in place in many economies, for lack of credible alternative policies in the eyes of technocrats. With things not moving at the WTO, the big trading powers are emphasizing free trade agreements (FTAs) and economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with developing countries. These agreements are in many ways more dangerous than the multilateral negotiations at the WTO since they often require greater concessions in terms of market access and tighter enforcement of intellectual property rights. When it first became part of the English vocabulary in the early 1990s, globalization was supposed to be the wave of the future. Fifteen years later, despite runaway shops and outsourcing, what passes for an international economy remains a collection of national economies. These economies are interdependent no doubt, but domestic factors still largely determine their dynamics. A decade ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born, joining the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the pillars of the system of international economic governance in the era of globalization. With a triumphalist air, officials of the three organizations meeting in Singapore during the first ministerial gathering of the WTO in December 1996 saw the remaining task of "global governance" as the achievement of "coherence," that is, the coordination of the neoliberal policies of the three institutions in order to ensure the smooth, technocratic integration of the global economy.
During globalization's heyday, we were told that state policies no longer mattered and that corporations would soon dwarf states. In fact, states still do matter. The European Union, the U.S. government, and the Chinese state are stronger economic actors today than they were a decade ago. In China, for instance, transnational corporations (TNCs) march to the tune of the state rather than the other way around.Moreover, state policies that interfere with the market in order to build up industrial structures or protect employment still make a difference. Indeed, over the last ten years, interventionist government policies have spelled the difference between development and underdevelopment, prosperity and poverty. Malaysia's imposition of capital controls during the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98 prevented it from unraveling like Thailand or Indonesia. Strict capital controls also insulated China from the economic collapse engulfing its neighbors.

But now Sebastian Mallaby, the influential pro-globalization commentator of the Washington Post, complains that "trade liberalization has stalled, aid is less coherent than it should be, and the next financial conflagration will be managed by an injured fireman." In fact, the situation is worse than he describes. The IMF is practically defunct. Knowing how the Fund precipitated and worsened the Asian financial crisis, more and more of the advanced developing countries are refusing to borrow from it or are paying ahead of schedule, with some declaring their intention never to borrow again. These include Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, and Argentina. Since the Fund's budget greatly depends on debt repayments from these big borrowers, this boycott is translating into what one expert describes as "a huge squeeze on the budget of the organization." The World Bank may seem to be in better health than the Fund. But having been central to the debacle of structural adjustment policies that left most developing and transitional economies that implemented them in greater poverty, with greater inequality, and in a state of stagnation, the Bank is also suffering a crisis of legitimacy. This can only be worsened by the recent finding of an official high-level expert panel headed by former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff that the Bank has been systematically manipulating its data to advance its pro-globalization position and conceal globalization's adverse effects.

The retreat from neoliberal globalization is most marked in Latin America. Long exploited by foreign energy giants, Bolivia under President Evo Morales has nationalized its energy resources. Nestor Kirchner of Argentina gave an example of how developing country governments can face down finance capital when he forced northern bondholders to accept only 25 cents of every dollar Argentina owed them. Hugo Chavez has launched an ambitious plan for regional integration, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), based on genuine economic cooperation instead of free trade, with little or no participation by northern TNCs, and driven by what Chavez himself describes as a "logic beyond capitalism."

Following two days of discussions at the Conference on People's Foreign Policy on 7-8 December 2006, Mumbai attended by delegates from trade unions, social movements, resistance movements, students organisations, women's organisations from Bangladesh, India, Lebanon, Burma , Nepal, , Pakistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka and regions of Kashmir and Tibet along with academicians and social critics,

We note that:

In the first four decades of independence, India made efforts to chart an economic policy based on the principle of self-reliance. It also acquired a degree of manoeuvrability in foreign policy based on principles of non-alignment;

Following the shift in India's economic policy in favour of an accelerated neo-liberal agenda since the early 1990s, the foreign policy has come to be aligned closely with the US while assuming a misplaced sense of power as a nuclear weapon state and its quest for emerging as a regional power;

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has come to be dominated by the United States that has extended its domination by suppressing all forms of resistance to US policy and has following 9/11 sought to divided the world between those 'for us' and 'against us', directed in substantial measure against the countries and peoples of West Asia;

India's acceptance of the global domination of the US is reflected in 18 July 2005 agreement on nuclear policy with the US, its recent conduct in the WTO, cooperation with the US agenda for India on genetically modified foods, its growing relationship with Israel including military relations, its complete reversal on its support for Iran and virtually pulling out of the Indo-Pak-Iran gas pipeline deal and its willingness to be part of the 'global war against terror';

India's policy in South Asian is based on a principle of domination and inequality; and as a consequence, continuing to suppress the democratic aspirations of the people of Kashmir, while it has sought to prove to the world that Pakistan is a primary site for spawning global terror; and further claiming to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka while providing these states with military, political and financial support to suppress these very struggles;

Through the deployment of armed forces in Kashmir and the North-East is to large extent for suppressing the peoples movement, the projected threat perception along the borders has provided the Indian state with the rational to justify an enormous defence budget that otherwise cannot be justified by any acceptable measure of force requirement for self defence and standards of public spending for a country that is home to the largest number of the worlds poor;

The Indian foreign policy assessment of a unipolar global order dominated by the US fails to fully understand or estimate the balance of power globally of the EU, Russia and China and the perceived lack of space for an intervention for changing the balance of force by an independent foreign policy is invalidated by the course adopted by some countries in Latin America and West Asia where struggles of people has changed the nature of the foreign policy;

The major victory against Israeli aggression in Lebanon by Hezbollah led Lebanese National resistance, the strengthening of the National resistance in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and the world wide opposition and protests against war and occupation is forcing US imperialism into a defensive position

Foreign policy is very much a reflection and outcome of the policies pursued by government at home and thus has a direct impact on the daily lives of citizens.

We believe that foreign policy, like any other policy, must be rooted in the democratic aspirations of citizens. It must be rooted in building a society that is based on economic, social and political equality and is free from all forms of discrimination where people are free to chart their own destinies without internal or external force or coercion. Such a policy must seek to defend and advance the right to independence and self-determination of nations and towards this end promote a multi-polar world order. Indian foreign policy is out of sync with these aspirations.

Laying the foundation for such a policy needs us to ground our aspirations with a sense of realism so that we successfully evolve strategies for struggles for a people's foreign policy.

We resolve to:

* Secure Global peace by
- Building on equality of nations and respect for human dignity within countrie

Kolkata Resistance On

Palash Biswas

( Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-33-25659551)

On Wednesday, Kolkata's intelligentsia came out on to the streets to air their protest against the violence in these two places where there are plans to turn farmlands over for factories. Not just artists, filmmakers, educationists, theatre personalities, musicians, litterateurs - all came together to express solidarity with the farmers.

Kolkata is resisting despite its sponataneous support for left.The Preamble to the Constitution of India describes India as a Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic. The left was defending the concept