(1906-1931)
Friday, February 26, 2010
Union Budget 2010: Pro-Rich and Anti-People
The Polit Bureau of the CPI (M) calls for the withdrawal of the indirect tax proposals which will fuel inflation and adversely affect the people. The increase in petrol and diesel prices to the tune of over Rs. 2.50 per litre must be summarily rescinded. The cuts in food and fertiliser subsidy also need to be reversed. The Polit Bureau calls upon all its Party units to launch protest actions against the anti-people proposals of the Budget.
Press Statement
The Union Budget 2010 presented by the UPA Government will neither stimulate growth nor bring down inflation. The Budget is premised upon a flawed strategy to meet the budget deficit by increasing indirect taxes across the board, especially on diesel and petrol, which will hit the common people, primarily the poorer sections. In contrast, direct taxes on the affluent sections have been reduced. This anti-people strategy will further fuel inflation in the backdrop of an already high food inflation rate of 20%.
As per the Finance Minister’s own estimates, there will be a revenue loss of Rs. 26000 crore in 2010-11 due to the direct tax concessions doled out to high-income earners as well as real estate developers, hoteliers and other commercial establishments. This comes in the backdrop of nearly Rs. 80000 crore tax concessions to corporates in 2009-10. In contrast, the Finance Minister has proposed to raise an additional Rs. 60000 crore in indirect taxes over the last year. The most objectionable aspect of the increase in indirect taxes has come in the form of a 5% increase in customs duty on crude petroleum along with a Re. 1 per litre increase in central excise duty on petrol and diesel. Raising the prices of diesel and petrol will further fuel all round inflation in the economy.
On the expenditure side, while there is a 15% increase in Central Plan expenditure, the increase in Central Assistance for the States is merely 8%, which implies a squeeze in real terms (the nominal GDP growth rate is 12.2%). The Budget also incorporates the recommendations of the 13th Finance Commission for only 32% share of the States in sharable central taxes against the demand to allocate 50%. On elementary education the paltry increase of Rs. 5000 crore falls far short of the requirement of universalizing the Right to Education. The Central Plan outlays for agriculture, irrigation and rural development shows stagnation in real terms, reflecting the Government’s waning commitment towards the rural population.
It is also shocking that food subsidy has been reduced by over Rs. 400 crore despite the commitment to enact a food security legislation. Fertiliser subsidy has also been cut by a whopping Rs. 3000 crore from what was spent last year. These moves to reduce subsidies in the name of targetting comes at a time when inflation is galloping and agricultural output growth has become negative. The anti-people approach of the Government in reducing subsidies was laid bare in the Economic survey, which has prescribed the dismantling of the PDS and initiating a “coupon system” for food and fertilisers.
The Finance Minister has announced a Rs. 40000 crore disinvestment programme for 2010-11, following Rs 25000 crore disinvestment earnings in 2009-10. This has been justified in the Budget speech as “unlocking” the value of the CPSEs. However, the latest Public Enterprises Survey 2008-09 clearly shows that the market capitalization of all listed CPSEs taken together fell by 27.41% between 31st March 2008 and 31st March 2009. The Finance Minister is therefore resorting to a specious defence of disinvestment, which is solely meant to appease the stock market speculators. The announcement that the RBI will issue bank licenses to more private sector players including non-bank finance companies reflect its intent towards further liberalisation of the financial sector.
The Polit Bureau of the CPI (M) calls for the withdrawal of the indirect tax proposals which will fuel inflation and adversely affect the people. The increase in petrol and diesel prices to the tune of over Rs. 2.50 per litre must be summarily rescinded. The cuts in food and fertiliser subsidy also need to be reversed. The Polit Bureau calls upon all its Party units to launch protest actions against the anti-people proposals of the Budget.
Tragic Death of W R Varadarajan : Prakash Karat
THE death by suicide of W R Varadrajan has shocked the entire party and a wide circle of trade union workers and supporters. WRV, as he was popularly known, was a talented trade union leader who was one of the all-India secretaries of the CITU. He was till the February Central Committee meeting a member of the Central Committee and a member of the Tamilnadu state committee. He served as a member of the state legislature for a term and was a good speaker and writer.
In the February meeting, based on the recommendation of the Tamilnadu state committee, disciplinary action was taken against WRV by the Central Committee. This resulted in his being removed from the elected positions he held in the Central Committee and the state committee. It was after this that WRV committed suicide, presumably on the night of February 11. There is a great deal of sadness within the party and amongst all of us who had worked with him, at this tragic end of a comrade who had so many qualities and who had made an important contribution to the development of the party in Tamilnadu and to the trade union movement.
It is natural that the manner of his death should raise a number of questions within the party and outside. Unfortunately, a section of the media is utilising this tragic event to launch an attack on the CPI(M) by purveying half-truths, distorting facts and by indulging in baseless speculation. The Polit Bureau felt that it is necessary to place the facts and explain how and why the disciplinary action was taken against WRV.
The Tamilnadu state committee received a complaint from a woman against WRV of alleged sexual harassment. This was in September 2009. As per the procedure in the party, since it involved a member of the state committee, the state committee decided to set up a three-member committee to enquire into the matter. The three members, who are all state committee members, included a member of the Central Committee, who was the convener and another member belonging to the state secretariat.
After the enquiry, the report of the committee was placed before the Tamilnadu state committee on November 25, 2009 for its consideration. The secretariat, on the basis of the enquiry report’s findings, recommended action against WRV. As is the practice, WRV as a member of the state committee, against whom the charges were leveled, was given an opportunity to explain his position to the state committee. After the discussion, the Tamilnadu state committee endorsed the enquiry committee’s findings and proposed that WRV be removed from all elected positions.
Since WRV was also a member of a higher committee, the Central Committee, the Tamilnadu state committee could not take the decision but sent its findings and recommendations for action to the Central Committee as per the provisions of the party.
The matter was taken up for consideration by the Central Committee at its meeting held from February 4 to 6, 2010 at Kolkata. The Tamilnadu state committee’s report and resolution and all materials pertaining to the case were circulated to the Central Committee members along with the letter sent by WRV defending his position. (Excerpts of the letter of WRV have been published in some newspapers)
When the matter was taken up for consideration, WRV was given the opportunity to defend his stand. After a two-hour discussion, the Central Committee decided to uphold the Tamilnadu state committee’s recommendation for disciplinary action. None of the 74 members of the Central Committee present opposed the action being taken. Five members recorded their abstention during the vote.
WRV responded to this by saying that he would submit to the decision of the Central Committee and that he would also exercise his right to appeal to the Central Control Commission.
The above narration of the course adopted in the disciplinary action against WRV is well known to the party members. But it is being spelt out to clear misconceptions which have been purveyed by some motivated reports in the media.
What are the misconceptions and half-truths being purveyed? It is alleged that WRV was driven out of the party. WRV was not expelled from the party. A disciplinary action involving removal from elected positions would mean that he would be placed in a suitable party committee. In this case, the Tamilnadu state secretariat had discussed on February 12 that he should be co-opted in the
The attempt therefore to portray the disciplinary action as a “hounding to death” a party leader is not only baseless but seeks to use the tragic event to malign the party and its leadership. If the party had not taken cognisance of the complaint and the concerned woman had gone public with her charges, the same media quarters would have gone to town attacking the CPI(M) for ignoring a sexual harassment charge against one of its leaders.
The party has been accused of either being “opaque,” for not explaining the reasons for the action, or, contrarily, of having “publicly shamed” WRV. Since WRV had not been removed from the party, the Central Committee did not make the charges against him public. This was because WRV was expected to continue to hold positions in the party and discharge his responsibilities. The CPI(M) does not believe in “publicly shaming” its cadres. The effort in the case of WRV was to help him to correct his lapses and continue working for the party.
The episode has also been used to denigrate the party’s organisational principle of democratic centralism. The case of WRV has been cited as an instance of “centralism” and “authoritarian” action. In fact, the procedures cited above in the disciplinary action prove the contrary. It is the state committee, under which he was directly working, which enquired and initiated the action. The higher committee, the Central Committee, came into the picture only when the state committee requested action. The democratic procedure is also underlined by the fact that no arbitrary actions are taken on discipline. There is a proper enquiry and the comrade concerned is allowed to present his or her case and be personally heard by the committee.
The other effort being made is to link the action against WRV with the rectification campaign launched by the party. The matter concerning WRV had no connection whatsoever with the rectification campaign. In fact, the complaint was lodged before the Central Committee had adopted the rectification campaign decision. The rectification campaign is meant to pinpoint wrong trends in the party and correct them. It is not about initiating disciplinary action against individual members.
A Communist Party’s organisation gives utmost priority to its cadres, especially those who have devoted their full time and life for the work of the party. Whenever comrades err in their judgment, or commit mistakes, the party looks at the entire contribution of the comrades concerned and disciplinary action is taken as a method to correct them. It is only as a last resort that a severe action like expulsion is taken. In the case of WRV, the party expected him to overcome his problem and make his full contribution to the party and the movement. It is a matter of regret that this was not what happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
