|
May 21, 2016 - No. 21 Supplement
Exposing the Role of the State in Crimes Against the People
Text of speech delivered by Comrade Hardial Bains, First Secretary of the Central Committee, Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) to a commemorative meeting, Vancouver, September 3, 1989
***
Comrades and Friends: As part of the programme to expose and condemn the Canadian state for its racist policy, its policy to make the Indians kill one another, and to push forward our demands that the Canadian and BC governments honour the victims of the Komagata Maru incident, we would like to remember September 5, 1914, seventy-five years ago. What took place on September 5, 1914? The Canadian Immigration Department (CID) utilized the services of one Bela Singh to attain their sinister motives and those of the Canadian government, to split the unity of the people and dismember the Indian Committee in Vancouver. This was the Committee formed to support the passengers of the Komagata Maru. Bela Singh was originally a resident of Janian village in district Hoshiarpur and his sinister motives and evil methods were well known to everyone. The members of the Indian Committee were alerted to the danger Bela Singh posed and they asked their legal advisers, the law firm of McNeil, Bird, MacDonald and Darling, to help them to get licences for some arms to defend their lives. The advocates did not take the matter seriously, however, and told them not to acquire arms. Three days later, on September 5, Bela Singh brought his loaded revolvers to the temple where a Sikh prayer meeting was being held in honour of a dead compatriot. Just at the time the final prayer was finished and the congregation bowed their heads before the holy book, the bullets of Bela Singh's revolvers entered through the backs and passed through the hearts of two men, including Bhai Bhag Singh, the president of the Khalsa Diwan Society. He also wounded six others. To this day, the Canadian government has never reversed the verdict on Bela Singh. The question as to why this traitor, Bela Singh, dared to go into the temple if he knew there was a danger to his life, was ignored by the Canadian government, by the courts and by all official circles. Could Bela Singh have escaped from such a large crowd if their motive was to take his life? It was a clear case of a plot engineered by the police to break the unity of the community and isolate [it] from the rest of the Canadian people, because of the support the community provided the passengers of the Komagata Maru. When the court failed in its duty to punish this murderer and instead praised his dastardly deed as heroic, the patriot Mewa Singh shot and killed Hopkinson in an open court. For this he was sent to the gallows. His declaration at the time of the shooting that his own act was also an act of self-defence, the court having failed in its duty, did not merit any consideration from the courts. This is one of the many clear examples of how the government and the courts tried to encourage the traitors amongst the Indians, while they punished the patriots. If we go through all the actual writings and directives of the time, the decisions of the Privy Council, the Orders in Council, the decisions of the Viceroy of India, at that time Lord Harding, the decisions of the Canadian government, including Premier Borden, and the Minister of Immigration and Labour, you will find that to a man they declared that "Hindus," as they called all the people from the Indian sub-continent, were not welcome to immigrate and settle in Canada. The newspapers -- the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, as well as others -- were openly and unabashedly racist in their treatment of the people from India. In fact, with regard to the entire Komagata Maru incident, the government and all its agencies, including the Immigration Department and the police, violated all the laws of their own creation. All the facts show that the law was of no significance when it clashed with the self-interest of the government. This was a known fact at that time as well. It is not a matter of hindsight. For instance, when the Charterer of the Komagata Maru, Baba Gurdit Singh, and the passengers, approached a firm of solicitors in Vancouver to take up their case and offered to pay them any amount they chose to name, they declined the offer on the grounds that the matter had gone "beyond the realm of such legal proceedings" and had become a question of national policy and diplomacy rather than of law. In a letter dated June 24, 1914, they replied as follows: "...We feel that the matter has become of such great moment that it has got beyond the realm of such legal proceedings and has become largely, if not entirely, a question of national policy of vital importance, not only to the Government of this country but also involves conflicting Imperial interests. "In the face of this, it seems to us that it is a question of diplomacy rather than law, and we do not feel that we could conscientiously enter upon a legal fight under these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that you have offered a very generous retainer." The documentation, the letters, telegrams, memos and statements of the government officials, from the Prime Minister on down, all show that the Canadian government, the government of British Columbia, the City Council of Vancouver, as well as the police, courts and immigration department never followed any law themselves. For example, India at that time was part of the British Empire and legally all Indians were British subjects. This remained the case even after 1947 when India gained its formal independence; all Indians were "recognized" as British subjects. It is only natural that all British subjects should have equal rights, including in matters of freedom of movement and freedom of commerce. They should have equal rights to come to Canada, or go to Australia, or New Zealand, or Britain or any other country within the British Empire, speaking strictly in terms of the law. The British make a great deal about their notion of "fair play" and the very least one should expect is that all British subjects would enjoy equal rights. However, in practice, this was not the case. The governments of Australia and New Zealand, especially that of New Zealand at that time, had particularly racist and discriminatory immigration policies. The Canadian government and its officials used to openly discuss that they should follow the example of New Zealand and bar "Hindu" immigration. They rapturously discussed how New Zealand was really taking a bold stand by ensuring a "White New Zealand." In other words, the Canadian state was implementing a racist policy. It is also important to underline here that even though the Indians were British subjects, and Canada was a dominion of Britain and its laws were sanctioned by the British Parliament, the impression was given that the Canadian government and its officials could actually make the law themselves and take away a person's status as a British subject. This meant that the British state only intervened where its own interests were threatened. It was in its interest to humiliate the Indians, hence it sanctioned the actions of the Canadian government. When it came to the British subjects who hailed from India, whether they were residents of Vancouver or kept prisoner in the waters of Vancouver harbour, they were not only deprived of any rights whatsoever by the Canadian government, but the "Indian government" -- that is, the British -- did nothing to intervene in defence of the rule of law. Neither were the passengers of the Komagata Maru given rights as British subjects nor did the Canadian laws protect them. There was no equality before the law for everyone in Canada. This was true at that time and it is the case today, also, when it comes to the fundamental questions which relate to rights and duties of a citizen. Even the fact that the Citizenship Act did not come into being until 1948 shows that, before 1948, the British had direct responsibility to protect their subjects -- which is a further indictment of the actions of the Canadian and British governments at the time of the Komagata Maru incident. The Canadian government simply refused to recognize the passengers of the Komagata Maru as British subjects, just as it refused to mete out justice to anyone hailing from India according to the Canadian laws. This case has no resemblance to any which the immigrants hailing from China or Japan met with at that time. They came under the category of what is called "Oriental" immigration and were subject to specific treaties signed between the government of Canada and the respective governments of China and Japan. Neither China nor Japan were British colonies. The immigrants coming from China and Japan were not British subjects, while all Indians were. Neither the Canadian government, nor the provincial and local governments, nor the police or courts or independent commissions, had any business whatsoever to deny British subjects their legitimate rights. Once the Canadian government took such an arbitrary stand, then how can we judge who followed which law? Anyone who is serious in terms of the rights of human beings will find that the Canadian officialdom carried out the greatest travesty on this front [...]. Once they had no justification in law, they used every kind of racist insult and slander against the people of Indian origin to split the people, both within the Indian community as well as between the Indian community and the rest of the Canadian population. Let us just for a moment move from 1914 to today, when we are commemorating these events. The question arises, has the Canadian government changed its ways? In 1914, there was no Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today, there is even a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no clause for punitive action against those who violate the rights which are enshrined there. On the contrary, the opposite is true. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that there are no such things as inviolable rights. Every "right" has "reasonable limits." While the "rights" have "reasonable limits," the duties, especially the duty to obey the law, is considered inviolable. The state and its agencies actually give themselves the right to violate any law and get away with it, just as was done in regard to theKomagata Maruincident and has been the practice ever since then, and before that time. It can be said that the extent to which the state punishes the violators of the rights and duties it provides its citizens, is the extent to which it defends its citizens. If there are no provisions to punish the violators, then there can be no rights or duties whatsoever. It can only be a fraud. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, adopted in 1789 by the French National Assembly as an act of the French Revolution, proclaimed that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and the constitution based on it provided for punitive action to be taken against those who violate its provisions. This is why the British government of that time carried out the most nefarious activities against the French Revolution, to ensure that it would not make any gains and that restoration would take place. In 1989, France celebrated the bi-centennial of the French Revolution. Margaret Thatcher, before going to Paris ostensibly to participate in the bi-centennial celebrations, declared that the French Revolution achieved nothing new in terms of the democratic rights and freedoms of human beings. Margaret Thatcher announced that the English already had these rights several centuries before through the Magna Carta ("The Great Charter"). The Magna Carta is a document that the English barons forced King John to approve in 1215. In the Charter, the king promised certain rights to his subjects. He did not grant democracy to all the people because the barons designed it to protect their rights and to gain more privileges. While it marked the first time that anyone had ever limited the absolute power of the king, in England or elsewhere, the Charter promised two kinds of rights: those rights the king promised to the barons, and others which the barons, in turn, promised to the freemen under them. While certain rights, such as Habeas Corpus, (which, by the way, was also violated in the case of the passengers of the Komagata Maru) originated in the Magna Carta, it was fundamentally the result of the struggle between the barons, who wanted to limit the rights of the central state, and the king. Nobody ever applauded the Magna Carta as a document which enshrines the rights of human beings. The Magna Carta was not a progressive measure in terms of the birth of modern nations. It took the English over 300 years to overcome it and establish the central nation state. [...] Margaret Thatcher is such a "democrat" and "patriot" that she is yearning for the days of the old marauders, those who put a brake on any development. If Thatcher could say such a thing with impunity today, you can imagine what rights and freedoms the British officials in Canada believed in during the first two decades of this century! The People's Front has put forward the demand that the Canadian government should honour the victims of the Komagata Maru incident. Instead of honouring the victims, the Canadian government arrogantly carries on as it did in the past. It went so far as to use the commemoration of the Komagata Maru incident and the seventy-fifth anniversary of the ship's expulsion from Vancouver, marked on July 23 of this year, to let everyone know that it is going to carry on its anti-people policies. Unabashedly, it let it be known that it is going to continue to finance those elements who make it their business to split the community and that it will continue to persecute the patriotic people. Secondly, that it would not take any action against the racists and those who incite chauvinism and, thirdly, that it would continue to treat the struggle of the people of Indian origin in isolation to that of the rest of the Canadian people. Those who were called "Hindus" at the turn of the century, today the government calls "visible minorities," further perpetrating the fraud of "majority" rights and "minority" rights. It openly allies with those toadies in the community who are demanding "rights" for these so-called "visible minorities." Just who is it who would demand such a thing? This shows not only open disregard for the feelings of the people but also that the state is letting it be known that it will carry on precisely the kind of activities which led to the tragic events of September 5, 1914 -- that is, to encourage toadies to attack the patriotic people; to finance agents in the Indian community and to have informers there; to split the Indian community; to encourage self-serving individuals and forge an alliance with those who are willing to go along with the racism and chauvinism of the Canadian state and to attack those who are not willing to go along with it. They accuse those who do not go along with the racism and chauvinism of the Canadian state of being "extremists," "terrorists" and "anarchists," and those who go along with this nefarious anti-people activity they call "moderates" and "serious," those who are really interested in bringing about "harmony" in the community. According to the racist state, the only problem remaining in the Indian community is to bring about "peace" and "harmony." This is nothing but a pretext to disrupt peace and harmony. These labels which are used against the anti-racist and patriotic forces today were also used in 1914. Even the words have not changed. Those people who were patriotic were denounced and a number of them were deported at that time from Canada for their patriotic feelings and sentiments and many were sent to the gallows on their return to India. These people were accused of being seditious and standing against the King. As in 1914, today too, the struggle of the Indian people is presented in isolation from that of the Canadian people, even though it was the struggle of the Canadian people then and it is the struggle of the Canadian people now. When we demand the rights of the people of Indian origin to live in peace in this country -- which was also the demand in 1914 -- without any interference by the state, without any encroachment on their rights, and without the state financing any agents and traitors from amongst the people, we are demanding the same rights for everyone. We are not demanding special rights for the people of Indian origin. When the same racist state tells us that in Canada the people are divided between "whites" and "visible minorities" and that there is such a thing as "majority" rights and "minority" rights, it convinces no one. How can some have more rights than others? The fact of the matter is that the state uses racism to split the people. It incites chauvinism, which is an attack on all the people. This is why it is said that a nation which oppresses others cannot itself be free. The same is the case with regard to the people. It is not true that "non-whites" get discriminated against by "whites." This is a fiction which the racists themselves have created. This mythology about the superiority of the so-called "whites" can be very quickly refuted. Were the French-speaking inhabitants of Quebec against whom brutal racial discrimination was used, not "white"? They suffered at the hands of the British colonialists in the same fashion as the Indians suffered. The people of Irish origin are also "white." They have not only suffered in the past but also continue to suffer at the hands of their colonizers. In recent history, the Doukhobors in British Columbia, who are also so-called white, have suffered. This shows that this mythology that "whites" have more rights than "non-whites" is a device used by the capitalists in order to cause splits and divisions amongst the people. The truth of the matter is that the state encourages the racists to organize themselves and to openly speak against the people of different backgrounds. These racists are provided with a lot of publicity and police protection. If there was such a thing that "whites" have all the rights, then we cannot see why, especially in the 1930s, more "whites" were deported from Canada than anyone else. They were denounced as Bolsheviks who were, according to the government, trying to overthrow the state. Thousands of them were deported to Europe. In other words, when it comes down to the rights of various people here, the rights are not enshrined. [...] Canada does not provide its citizens with fundamental inviolable rights. Historically a phrase has been coined that in Canada you don't have rights, you have "privileges." If you don't play our game, they say quite openly, we will take these "privileges" away. If you play the game, you can, in a manner of speaking, have some "privileges." The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has emphasized that all rights in Canada are under the pressure, under the strain, the tension of "reasonable limits" and of course, the apologists of the system say this is "justifiable." In lieu of the rule of law, they go so far as to argue that these limits are the guarantee that "democracy is not abused." This is so bogus that a simple example refutes it. For example, what is justifiable for us is quite different from what is justifiable for Brian Mulroney. If it was our government in power which received the demand to right the wrongs of history against the victims of the Komagata Maru incident, we would issue an apology on behalf of the state, not only to all the Canadian people but to all the Indian people, and to all the families which specifically suffered. This is what we would consider "reasonable limits" and what we would call "justifiable." We would also declare that our government would neither practice nor permit any form of racism or racial discrimination. The Supreme Court judges are such flunkeys of the Canadian state that none of them has yet given a judgement against the arbitrary notion of "reasonable limits." On the contrary, they have rubber-stamped it, and, within this, even the citizenship of an individual, the right to live in the country of your citizenship, is not an inviolable right. Once one puts limits, reasonable or unreasonable, then a whole can of worms is opened. Everything is up for subjective interpretation. Those who are economically powerful will have all the rights, as is the case in Canada. Even immigration laws are streamlined in this way. The rich of any country can enter Canada as permanent residents just because they are rich and the poor for the same reason can be denied entry. What is reasonable for the rich is quite unreasonable for the poor. Inviolability in terms of rights is fundamental. If a right is to have the dignity of its validity, it must have the power of enforcement as well, otherwise it has no content, no meaning. Without that inviolability, a right means nothing and amounts to nothing. It can only give rise to and perpetuate conflict. In our view, the Canadian state is a state of arbitrariness and lawlessness in favour of exploitation, retrogression and reaction. There is no such thing as inviolable rights according to the Canadian state. There is a big difference between what is said and what is done. For instance, the Minister of External Affairs on one hand can be heard talking against apartheid in South Africa while Canadian businessmen are carrying out a healthy business with racist South Africa. It is a mockery. What do the words of a representative of the Canadian state amount to? In the same fashion, the Canadian government could declare that it is against racism, while at the same time you can have racist rallies with a huge amount of propaganda in the bourgeois press, on the radio, television, and the police protecting the racists. To suggest that they are against racism or to suggest that the Canadian government has actually mellowed and distances itself from what the government of the day did to the people of Indian origin and others, not only at the turn of the century but since then, is to make a mockery of the plight of the people. Far from it, Comrades and Friends, these people are laughing at us. For the government to use the occasion of the commemoration of the victims of the Komagata Maru on July 23 to further create public opinion in favour of their flunkeys in the Indian community is another insult against the anti-racist and democratic forces in this country. Some of these flunkeys are actually given money to work against the anti-racist and democratic forces. What they did on July 23 and the events leading up to it is a virtual declaration that they will carry on as before. Far from in any way being confused about their activities or having illusions, it shows us that we have to struggle against them. We cannot in any way narrow down or limit our demands for our inviolable fundamental rights. The Canadian state talks a lot about democracy but there is nothing democratic in its words and deeds. Besides the inviolability of a right, real democracy also has only one meaning, and one content. It is the rule of the majority, in the interests of the majority. Here we refer to the numerical majority of the population. We do not divide the people on a racial basis in the manner in which the government and all racists speak, between "majority whites" and "visible minorities." No sooner it is said that the majority is defined as white, then it is hostile to the very spirit of democracy. The majority can only be defined by the meaning history gives it at a particular time. For example, the American people fought against British colonialism in the 18th century. The content of the struggle at that time is what defined what constituted the majority. All those Americans whose aspirations were for independence and freedom constituted the majority. They were the ones who exercised their will, the ones in whose interests the state was established. If we were to define majority in any other way at that time, or if we were to define majority in that spirit at the present time, then it would be absurd. The majority at the present time in the United States is comprised of the working class. There are others who are also toilers, working people, who are also part of the majority. A really democratic state will be a state which is elected by the workers, in the interests of the workers. That state will not be in any way hostile to the rights of any other working people, those who are the producers in the society. It will be hostile to anything which enslaves them. It will establish a real democracy. Are we to suggest that in our country, at this time, the millionaires and billionaires constitute the majority? Just to organize what they call an election and then stage a vote is called to exercise the "will" of the majority. It is a farce! But this farce even goes so far that it is barely a majority of the people who register as voters, let alone vote! It is not unusual in the United States to have less than 50 per cent of the population on the voters' lists. Not to speak of those who claim to win a majority of the votes. They never receive more than 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the votes of the adult population in that country. So who is suggesting that they are elected by the majority? What do these elected individuals do? Work for the majority? What a joke! [...] Comrades and Friends, When the Canadian state is so defined that it operates in the most arbitrary and anti-people fashion, then any promises by the government will be suspect. We cannot really go by the phrases of Brian Mulroney or Jerry Weiner or others. [...] Will the government honour the victims of the Komagata Maru incident? Will the government declare that it will never practice racism? Will the government actually stop all acts of racism? It doesn't want to address itself to these questions. This means that our struggle must go on ... This means that this year at their Convention on December 24, the East Indian Defence Committee and People's Front must take up as a basic task in the coming months and years the escalation of the struggle against racism, including specifically against the stands which the Canadian state takes on these questions. In other words, on January 11, when we culminate our activities to commemorate the victims of the Komagata Maru incident, we have to tell the people that the government has refused to declare that it will oppose racism or any acts of racism. The government has refused to honour the victims of the Komagata Maru incident and it is carrying on in the same old way of splitting the Indians from the other Canadians and making the Indians fight with one another. We have to say to the people in a very demonstrative way that the government must be racist because it refuses to take a stand. The government must sympathize with the racists, because it has refused to declare punitive measures against those who commit acts of racism and racial discrimination, engage in racist propaganda, and so on. The government is as gleeful about its victory today as it was in 1914 and as it has been throughout the 75 years in between. It has never ever regretted carrying out such actions and the worst proof of this is what it did on July 23. For example, if the government had regretted such things, then it would have invited all the interested parties to attend the commemorative activities. It would have asked all of those concerned to come on July 23 to commemorate this event in order to really honour the victims and it would have pledged that the state will never do such a thing again. [...] Instead of that, the government actually drew lines of demarcation between those who have been fighting for the rights of the people, who have been bringing to the fore the essence of the struggle which took place, and those who are doubtful elements. These elements were brought together for traitorous purposes. Of course, there may have been some serious, well-meaning people among them, some people who are confused, but that is not the issue. The issue is what did the state achieve on July 23? What it achieved on July 23 is the same as was carried out by the state in 1914. It tried to further sow seeds of dissension amongst the people and inflame passions. On one hand, you have the patriotic forces declaring their stand on this question on July 23, 1989. On the other hand, you have the state again organizing against the patriotic elements [...] Seventy-five years after the Komagata Maru incident, and after the shameful activities of July 23rd of this year, the question arises, which we raise openly, in front of everyone: Does the racist state want to have bloodshed again in the Indian community? Who are they financing to carry on these activities? Who are their agents? Who are those today who have loaded revolvers in the manner of the traitor Bela Singh, the spy and agent of the CID? Who today are the pistols of the racist state? Where will the shooting take place? And who will they shoot? How much will they get for their nefarious activity? These are the questions which arise. The workers should ask the officials such questions. They should phone some of these ministers and MPs, and ask: how about revealing your plan, this sinister hand which from behind the scenes is directing these dastardly activities against the Canadian people, as was done on that black day of September 5, 1914 when the traitor Bela Singh shot Bhag Singh in the back as he was praying in honour of a dead compatriot? If their conscience is clear, they will say that they do not have any such plans. Everybody will then say: Yes, what the state says is correct. However, let us not fall into indifference and apathy. The Canadian government and its state claim that they represent all Canadians. On July 23, they did not represent anyone. They represented only those who went along with them, with their narrow interests which did not permit them to apologize for their illegal and racist activities carried out in 1914 and since then. [...] This struggle we are waging is a struggle of all the Canadian people, not just a section of the people. At the same time, the people of Indian origin have a right to unite together and demand redress for the injustices done specifically to them. It is not in any way in contradiction with the spirit of the unity of the people. Far from it, it will promote the unity of the people. Comrades and Friends, What the government did on July 23 or what has been happening for the last 75 years can be summed up strictly by pointing out that the government wants to promote cowards, lackeys -- those people who have no principles whatsoever. The state hates those who stand up to it and fight for their rights. The state slanders them as "terrorists." They are called "violent" and "extremists." We reiterate from this rostrum, as we have repeated for the last twenty years, that we will not submit to anyone who demands that we give up our rights. We stand on just positions. We do not beg anyone for our rights. We enshrine those rights ourselves and we fight for them. [Applause] This is not only the way we recognize those rights which are just but also how we fight for those rights. We carry on the struggle on this basis. We have been accused of trying to get the state to bow to us. We ask: what would be so wrong about the state bowing to the people? We are not demanding that the state bow to us to be our slave. We are merely demanding that the state acknowledge all the crimes it has committed in the past, and stop cutting our throats at this time. Is this too much to ask? It is the most minimum any self-respecting people could ask for. We are not asking for monetary compensation, even though members of the Indian community in 1913 and 1914 were owed money by the government of the day as a result of its nefarious activities with regard to the Komagata Maru. [...] Our people have been hard working from day one. Even in 1906 and 1908, when they were running slanders that our people were a burden on the state, actual investigation showed that there was no one on social welfare. Indian families have always looked after their own unemployed and they looked after themselves extremely well. The wrongs committed against the people of Indian origin and all the Canadian people cannot be reduced to a matter of dollars and cents. Maybe the Rajiv Gandhis and Jawaharlal Nehrus and Indira Gandhis and others of their ilk have the habit of begging, but not the people. Whether it be the Punjabis or any others from amongst the Indian people, there is no tradition of bending to anyone. This struggle for people's dignity and their rights still goes on. There has not been a year when the struggle has not flared up. Sometimes it is at a low level and other times it is at a high level, but it goes on, and will go on until equal rights are enshrined for all. There is not a day when our hearts have not brought forth this desire to be free, to be independent, to be happy in the ways which we want. Those who love money and reject these aspirations for freedom may have turned their backs on our history, on our traditions, but this is not the case with the progressive community of Vancouver; with the progressive and patriotic people of India, of Punjab, this can never be the case. During this entire period when there has been racist hysteria or racism in disguised forms, the anti-racist democratic forces have stood here with chests out, chins up and fists up in the air, and this is how we have protected ourselves. No one should ever think that we are going to lose vigilance and give up. Our struggle is not in any way insulting to anyone nor is it detrimental to them. It is not directed against anyone. It is not in any way waged for the purpose of making anyone a slave. Far from it. It is beckoning everyone to also stand up. If we do not do this, we will not be what we claim to be. It is hard, really very hard, to negate oneself, because struggle is an integral part of life. It is the life blood which runs in the veins of the people. [...] The people of Indian origin who are resident abroad may have the citizenship of many different countries, but they belong to the same nation. It is very unfortunate that the state which represents the Indian nation today is also hostile to its people, both at home and abroad. It also conspires against them. It is acting in the same fashion as the colonial Indian government of the days of the Komagata Maru. It also sits with our enemies and conspires against the people. It actually carries out the same activities as our enemies here. Do you know that from 1947 to 1989, in a period of 42 years, many imperialist and revisionist foreign governments have used every kind of racist epithet against us. The government of India has not yet uttered a single word in protest. It has never condemned anyone. Various individuals have died as a result of the racist attacks, especially in Britain. The Indian government has its tongue tied. When it speaks, it spouts its venom against us. It states that we deserve to be treated like this. It is our fault. In this respect, when we stand for our dignity, for our rights, it is an inspiration to the people of India as well. It also makes our brothers and sisters there courageous. Our enemies chide us for having allegedly become very "affluent" living abroad. That "affluence" means what? That we should lose our dignity, that we should have no self respect? Far from it, "affluence" means that we should fight all the more tenaciously for our self respect, for our dignity, for our rights. There is no contradiction whatsoever in fighting for economic well-being and for our political rights. Those who suggest that because we are "affluent" we should bow to our enemies are gravely mistaken. There is no wisdom in such a thing. This is stupidity which all progressive and democratic forces reject. Those who are suggesting such things are preaching servility to the racist state. To be economically relatively "better off" means that one is in a "better off" position to fight for our rights. Are they suggesting that because we are "better off" we should give up everything? It is the kind of "wisdom" which comes from the hardened traitors, those who do not have any self respect, any dignity whatsoever. Comrades and Friends, We must develop our struggle further. We did not have any illusions that the government would become sensible and agree with our demands. Far from it, they have created another crime against us for which they will also have to render accounts. We must also keep in mind that whosoever carries out treacherous activities -- collaborates with the state against the dignity and the rights of the people -- is a traitor. We will denounce these forces, and carry out the struggle against them as well, as we carry out the struggle against the state-organized racist attacks. Traitors always come in packs. There were traitors in the 1970s, and there were traitors before. There are traitors now. [...] Some wear big turbans and call themselves "religious;" some sport red scarves around their necks and call themselves "socialists," "communists" and such things. It does not matter what kind of attire any one of these people wears, those who are collaborators with the state against the interests of the people remain traitors. They should be damned. One should never have their hands out to the racist state for anything. We the people of India resident abroad are answerable only to our people, the Indian and Canadian people, and to history. We are answerable to the peoples of the world. The struggle for dignity and for our rights is all we have with which we inspire ourselves and our younger generation, on the basis of which the struggle shall carry on. We shall win! [Sustained applause and standing ovation]
(Reprinted from TML Daily, Vol. 24, No. 203, September 1, 1994. Slightly edited for grammar by TML.) Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
The culprit was caught
red-handed and [turned] over to
the
police. Mr. Hopkinson of the CID, whose agent Bela Singh was,
got him released on bail. Bela Singh confessed his guilt in the
open court but said that he had acted in self-defence. The court
acquitted him and declared in the judgement that such a daring
deed, in the presence of such a great gathering, could only have
been done in self-defence. The judge ignored the main evidence as
to why Bela Singh had gone there with loaded revolvers when the
gathering was sitting unarmed in the temple, mourning a dead
compatriot.