I am just recalling the below the opposition leader’s speech in the parliament on the No -Confidence speech against the Vajpayee goverment in 1996 and the two first two opening paragraphs of V.I.LENIN’s State and Revolution for the reason that it puzzled me when i saw the obituaries of Atal Bihari Vajpayee . Can one forget his life and times when you recall him and simply eulogize him, without looking at the history –
“A heated debate followed the moving of the confidence motion by Vajpayee in Parliament on May 27, 1996. Opposition members questioned the BJP’s divisive ideology, and Inderjit Gupta of the Communist Party of India flew at the 13-day old Prime Minister. Mincing no words, he accused Vajpayee of being double faced.
“Sir, my friend Shri Vajpayee who is a very very old friend of mine and I think we are on very good terms with each other. We have seen one face of him here in this debate, during this debate. All the media, the Press and everybody have definitely been very much impressed by his sobriety, his calmness, his appeal to everybody, his reasonableness etc. etc. But I regret to say that Shri Vajpayee on occasions also has a different face. This is the trouble.”2
Gupta went on to remind Vajpayee of a speech he made in 1983 that preceded the massacre of over 2,000 mostly Muslim men and women in Nellie in Assam. He quoted an excerpt from the speech: “Foreigners have come here; and the Government does nothing. What if they had come into Punjab instead, people would have chopped them into pieces and thrown them away.” Gupta called the speech inflammatory and irresponsible and said: “This is very different to the type of speech that he made here yesterday [when Vajpayee moved the motion].”
2. Subrahmaniam, V. 2009. "Two BJP men, so alike and so different", The Hindu, December 9. [https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Two-BJP-men-so-alike-and-so-different/article16852263.ece].
Again i am recalling this opening paragraph of V.I.Lenin’s The State and Revolution.If you substitute some the words and the context, does it not look appropriate to the comment and observation that i am trying to make.
“What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!
In these circumstances, in view of the unprecedently wide-spread distortion of Marxism, our prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state. This will necessitate a number of long quotations from the works of Marx and Engels themselves. Of course, long quotations will render the text cumbersome and not help at all to make it popular reading, but we cannot possibly dispense with them. All, or at any rate all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the state must by all means be quoted as fully as possible so that the reader may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of the founders of scientific socialism, and of the evolution of those views, and so that their distortion by the “Kautskyism” now prevailing may be documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated.”
Posted and Prepared by .M.Balaji . Please send your valuable comments to firstname.lastname@example.org