Oregon daily emerald., January 27, 1972, Page 9, Image 9

• • •
Asia
(Continued from Page 8)
Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries did not
flee to India, but instead went into the
countryside to develop the basis for a
“People’s War”. The longer the issue
remained unsettled, the stronger the
people’s forces became. In Dr. Lewis’
words, “Evidently Maoists and other
extremist groups, which have been
comparatively weak in East Bengal, have
not yet begun to compete for control of the
insurgency. My guess, however, is that the
talents of the official Awami League
leadership do not run primarily to the
conduct of guerrilla warfare. The longer
the struggle persists, thereby both
prolonging the internal turmoil within
East Bengal and inducing radicalization of
the India-based population, the greater
will be the likelihood that the conduct of
the insurgency, and therefore control of
whatever autonomous regime may
eventually emerge, will slip into tougher
partisan hands.” (The text of Dr. Lewis’
paper can also be found in the Pacific
Research and World Empire Telegram
Volume III, Number 1, November
December, 1971.) A socialist East Bengal
would be a source of strength for the West
Bengalis struggling for their independence
from India’s ruling class. This was clearly
unacceptable to the reactionaries in New
Dehli.
SOVIET VS. U.S.
It is naive to think that India would have
carried out its agression against Pakistan
without the open or tacit support of the two
great imperialist powers, the Soviet Union
and the United States. The position of the
Soviet Union in this matter is very clear.
In August, 1971, India and the Soviet Union
signed a treaty of “peace, friendship and
co-operation.” This was in fact a treaty of
military alliance. Since that time, the
Soviet Union has supplied India with
arms and material and has supported its
expansionist policies in the United
Nations. The present leadership in the
Soviet Union should not be confused with
the revolutionary leadership of Lenin and
Stalin. Instead of supporting the just,
revolutionary struggles of the peoples of
the world as Russia did up to the death of
Stalin, the revisionist leaders now support
counterrevolutionary, repressive regimes.
This is not a blanket fact as they have
supported the revolutionary struggles of
the Vietnamese people. However this may
be a special case of direct confrontation
with Russia’s main imperialist enemy, the
United States. From the Soviet Union’s
armed agression against the People’s
Republic of China in 1962, to its invasion of
Czechoslovakia in 1968, to its support of
reactionary Arab leadership in 1970-1971,
to its support of Indian aggression against
Pakistan in 1971, the pattern is fairly
consistent The Social-imperialists of
Russia are attempting to gain influence,
raw materials and new markets in every
section of the world. Its arch imperialist
enemy is the United States, but its real
enemies are the revolutionary people of
the world supported by the People’s
Republic of China. It is clear then that the
Soviet Union’s support of India is ai. at
tempt to get a piece of the South Asian
action.
The position of the United States is not
hard to figure out either. The misleaders of
the United States may have miscalculated
the intentions of the social-imperialist and
Indian aggressors, but this seems unlikely.
What probably happened is that by trying
to play both sides of the conflict, that is
India and Pakistan, Nixon and his bunch of
war criminals were out manuvered by the
Soviet Union who made no attempt to
support anybody other than India. The
U.S. was left with nobody to support other
than Pakistan. That support was more
show than anything else. Arms shipments
to Pakistan had been essentially cut off
and the demonstration of power by a
section of our Navy was weak. Jack An
derson has exposed a series of discussions
between war criminal Henry Kissinger
ana a group of his lackeys. In their
discussions, Kissinger said he is “cat
ching hell” from Nixon because they are
not being hard enough on India. During the
course of the discussions Maurice J.
Williams, deputy administrator. Agency
for International Development made a
revealing statement as to why the U S.
govenment could not take too hard a stand
against India. He said “The Department
of Agriculture says the price of vegetable
oil is weakening and it would help us
domestically...to ship oil to India.” (The
account of Jack Anderson’s story can be
found in the January 17, 1971 issues of
“Newsweek” and “Time”.) Therefore, the
U.S. imperialists could not take too hard a
stand against India, militarily, that is for
talk is cheap, because they had to protect
their markets and investments in India.
Thus the U.S. stood by while the social
imperialists and Indian aggressors split up
Pakistan and established the puppet
government of “Bangla Desh.”
Another consequence of these events
could be an increase in the competition
between U.S. imperialism and soviet
social-imperialism. Both countries have
recently reinforced their fleets in the
Indian Ocean. An analysis of these events
can be found in the Peking Review,
number 2, January 14, 1972.
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
The hardest issue for the American left
to understand is the actions of the People’s
Republic of China. Those who support
China seem to want it to be the shining star
of the revolution and do everything that is
right. That is, right from the American
left’s point of view. Therefore, when the
American press showed the suffering of
the East Bengali people, the immediate
cry was for freedom for the suffering
masses. This meant the defeat of the West
Pakistani Army and the establishment of
the Awami League Rule. When the press
reported that China was supporting the
Pakistani government, many of the
American radicals were crushed. Their
shining star was tarnished, China was
wrong. Is this true? Here is what the
Chinese government and people said:
“The Chinese Government and people
are closely following the developments of
the situation on the subcontinent. We
always maintain that the internal affairs
of each country should be settled by the
people of the country themselves and that
disputes between countries should be
settled through consultations by the
countries concerned. We are firmly op
posed to interference in the Internal af
fairs of other countries, to launching
armed aggression and occupying the
territory of other countries, no matter
under what pretext these acts are carried
out.’’ (“Peking Review” number 50,
December 10, 1971, page 7). China did not
state that they support the oppression of
the East Bengali people, but rather that
the solution could not be imposed by
another country. This is just what the
Indian aggressors, social-imperialists and
U.S. imperialists fear the most. As Dr.
Lewis alluded to in his report, if the East
Bengali people were left to themselves, the
solution they would come up with would be
people’s war and the establishment of a
socialist state. No country can free the
population of another. The U.S. im
perialists did not free the population of
another. The U.S. imperialists did not free
the people of the Dominican Republic by
sending troops, nor have they freed the
people of Vietnam, just to name a few
examples, nor did the social-imperialists’
invasion of Czechoslovakia free the
Czechs, nor has the Indian invasion of East
Bengal freed the Bengali people. The
People’s Republic of China’s policy is
clearly stated and its actions have been
consistent with this policy. The shining red
star of China is not tarnished, but stands
out clearer than ever before.
A NEW STAGE IN SOUTH ASIA
At the present time, the revolutionary
struggles of the East Bengali people have
been temporarily set back. With the
establishment of “Bangla Desh” with
Sheik Mujibur Rahman at its head should
buy the reactionaries some time. But the
forces of social revolution in South Asia
have been set in motion and Sheik Mujib
will not be able to deliver the social justice
the Bengali people demand. The first
country he visited after his release from
West Pakistan was Great Britain, then he
went to India, and finally made his grand
entrance into “free Bangla Desh”. It is
clear from these actions and his past
statements that he is laying East Bengal
open to imperialism, and imperialism
cannot afford social justice. The Bengali
people will not wait long, and if the
revolutionaires succeed in integrating
themselves with the masses, the Bengali
People should soon be on the road to
liberation.
The events in South Asia have also af
fected West Pakistan and West Bengal.
The workers and peasants of West Bengal
have a long history of struggle against the
oppression of the “ruling 22." Even the
installation of the “progressive" president
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has not fooled them. On
January 3, 1972, more than 1,000 workers
of the Pakistan Tobacco Co. seized the
firm’s factory, demanding that the firm
meet their complaints. (The Oregon Dally
Emerald, Vol. 73, No. 09, January 4, 1972,
page 12). This is not an isolated incident.
In West Bengal, the Naxalites have grown
stronger and are beginning to integrate
themselves with the peasants in the
countryside surrounding Calcutta.
People's war is on the agenda for South
Asia. The heroic struggles of the Viet
namese people is acting as a guide for the
rest of the people of Asia and the world
“All reactionaries are paper tigers. In
appearance, the reactionaries are
terrifying, but in reality they are not so
powerful. From a long-term point of view,
it is not the reactionaries but the people
who a re rea lly powerf ul. ” (Mao Tse -tung).
Victory to the Vietnamese people!
Victory to the Bengali people! Victory to
the people of the world!
did man first
learn
to kill
when he found
love costs
one's self
hate costs
somebody else?
Marcellus Deleanor
'STOP WORRYING — WE'LL CALL IT PROTECTIVE REACTION!'