 Three days from now, India will be celebrating the 17th year of its independence and therefore it's time to look at what independence has meant and what has happened in the 70 years and finally and most importantly what is happening now. Obviously the thing is a very extensive one and I don't prefer to go into great detail but I would like to pick up what I think are the main thread for your consideration. The first of all today, as we look back, it is important to realize that India before 1947 was a colony, was a subject country, a country subject to another country. Now today it suits a number of people who belong to a tradition, collaborated with British imperialism to say that India has been for a thousand years or more ruled by foreigners and that our actual enemy has the RSS actually put forward in its writings as they were writing, co-workers writing in 30s, 40s and later our real enemies are Muslims who actually invaded and ruled over this country and so on and so forth and destroyed the nation's civilization. Now the first thing to remember is that India's subjection to England was a totally different nature from what used to happen earlier when for an army like the Normans for instance in 1066 conquering England or the variant around 1200 conquering large parts of northern India or Baba later on establishing the Mughal Empire in India the major difference between those kinds of foreign invasions and British conquest was that in those foreign invasions the foreigners whether they were in England, Normans in England or the Mongols in China or Mongols in Iran or Mughals in India they actually did not send wealth out of the country to any other they themselves came and enjoyed wealth and then their descendants became part of the soil as it was in other words, colonialism is the central new institution that came into being around 1500 when in 1492 Colombo discovered America and 1498-99 the Portuguese underbought to the Rama came and anchored at Kalikar this initiated a colonial regime throughout the world the devastation of what was called Amerindian communities deduction of their populations, immense cruelties on them, making them work in silver mines by the Spaniards the African slave trade transferring some 15 million slaves in 300 years from Africa to the New World and then the conquest of India and other countries by Britain and France and transferring their wealth to Britain and the metropolitan countries if France conquered Indochina then it would transfer when from Indochina the Dutch conquered Indonesia they transferred wealth to Holland now this was a totally new thing that a country should be exploited for the good of the ruling classes and the wealthier classes of another country it is totally wrong to suppose that in medieval India before the British wealth used to be transferred from India to any country that didn't happen, it was not the case at all but with colonialism this began the second thing which began to take place was to mold the economy of the ruled country for the profits of the ruling country the free trade, the destruction of Indian industry the import, free import of British cloth into India the opium trade exporting opium by force into China so that the tribute from India could be paid via China all these things made British rule over India totally different from any previous kind of regime in India whether it was Mauryan or Shoshana or Gupta or Delhi Kultham or the Marathas so this is the essential fact to remember and then we come to understand, we should come to an understanding of what the national movement was about and what visions developed from time to time about how free India should be what a free India should be the first thing that one should understand I think is that colonialism while destroying the whole city, the society had also two consequences, unintended consequences first of all the colonial government for its own efficiency for the collection of taxes here to be converted into tribute for the destruction of Indian industry and import and marketing of British goods and such as the from and shipping of raw materials from India laid out railways in the second half of the 19th century developed postal system and telegraph and so forth and therefore did the foundation in a sense material foundation for the consciousness in India of Indian feeling, some Indian feeling that they belong to the same country that they could move from Bombay to Calcutta that from and that belonging to some place near Farnpool they could go to Calcutta to work as laborers laborers so they began to feel that they belong to one country a national consciousness began to flow into India unintended consequence of colonialism the second important thing was that new ideas began to flow into India and that I think is very important today there are a large number of people who speak of as if in ancient India we had everything we had everything in philosophy and so forth and so on and of course if you follow Mr. Modi we would have probably genetics and so forth in the mythic period but the real fact and the important fact is that Europe produced revolution and revolutionary ideas at the same time that is constructed colonialism I am referring to the French Revolution of 1789 as I would later on refer to the Revolution of 1917 very briefly totally new ideas, secularism, the quality of men and women the right to vote, the adult franchise the idea of national independence all of them are concentrated in five years of French Revolutionary History 1789 and 1894 nobody else, no philosopher had said that men and women could be equal no one had thought that all nations have the right to independence no one had previously thought that the state can be secular and religion can be separated from it it was the French Revolutionary who first time in the world had the courage to say that we don't belong to any religion religion has nothing to do with political structure they had their false secularism even six years before the word very secular was came into use so these ideas also flowed into India they flowed with English education particularly English education first planted here so that Indians could work along with British officials to work agents and officials but it had this consequences and as we know Ram Mohan Roy was greatly influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution now therefore while recognizing the totally new and destructive character of colonialism one must also recognize the new civilization the new values that now flowed from Europe to India and one of the major impulse before Indian independence was after all the slogan that India should be independent just as every other nation had the right for independence so did India have the right to independence two things I will mention because these things have implications for what happened after 1940s one is that it's not only ideas but it's also the system of knowledge could without modern economics have Dada Bai, Nauravi and R.C. Dada and Subramaniam Ayur and others could have analyzed the exploitative character of British rule as the infatim it was only modern economics that made it possible and therefore one should really recognize that Indian national movement owes much to new values, new ideas that have nothing to do with any religion that had nothing to do with our past culture but they arose out of the west this is a historical fact which is extremely important and it's particularly important when we are faced with the modern the recent insistence on all wisdom having been obtained by Indians in ancient times now clearly not only ideas but also organization the communist thinker Gramsci has said that while prince was the center of political theory ruler, prince in the past today or that is in modern recent times it is the political party which is the central political institution and this too is totally in copying of European situations that the Indian national congress was established in Bombay with its first session in 1885 the political party whatever be the limitations in the objectives of the Indian national congress how much loyalty they might proclaim for Britain and their admiration for Queen Victoria the facts remain that they formed a political party and by its very name that the ambitions of that political party or the potential for the ambitions of that political party Indian national congress went far beyond the protestation that they were nearly trying to make British rule better by giving it good advice I will not go into further details you know this is very interesting the kind of tongue-in-cheek talk that the earlier leaders moderate said on the one side bitterly criticizing British rule on the other side saying that they were very loyal to the British government and particularly to the Queen that was because they were middle class people they had no great support from the masses they never had any pretentions to go among the presentry but we must remember them particularly people like Noroji and people like Arthidas and others that they felt for the poor and that makes such them apart and Nehru says very aptly in his autobiography that loyalists and models they were at the same time revolutionary it's a very important thing and still important to remember today that India cannot do without modern values and without learning from the Soviet from the sense and Soviet revolution now as the national movement developed people sacrifice their lives the Bengal revolutionaries the other eyes hundreds of them going to their deaths and hangings in 1914-15 the revolutionaries of 20s especially Bhagat Singh to be remembered there they belonged to a small minority largely coming from the middle classes not all of them having practically no support among the masses Bhagat Singh in the case of other eyes underlines this one but that is the importance of Gandhi Ji that after his arrival here in 2015 he with the Shampaara and Satya Graha and other agitations he fought for the first time brought the poorer sections into the national movement the Bolton historians and Cambridge historians might point out that those were not the poorest sections they were the rich presentry to begin with they were the industrial workers of Ahmedabad to begin with not unemployed Dalit labourers but the point is that even these classes never before in Indian history had ever taken part in a political agitation they might be rich present they might be better placed industrial workers but had any of them in any previous effect ever entered the Arab area of political agitation and then of course the agitation flowed down further there were the village poor the Harijan movement launched by Gandhi Ji in the 30s they were weaver they were spinning women and they were above all women who joined the national movement now where Gandhi Ji's grace contribution a peculiar combination of religious tolerance and religious appeal this combination of leading the national movement and also living a life of poverty all these are important and deserve respect but his vision for India was not one which could attract but if they had ever learnt about it the mass of the Indian people I don't know if many of you have heard as I have done twice or tried in Swaraj he speaks of an India where there would be no railways no lawyers and horror of horrors, no doctors an India, in India that he wished to establish to see established there would be no doctors because medicine was, western medicine was all wrong there would be villagers and hardly any town there would be custodian ships and this idea they developed later after the Swaraj of landlords and industrialists could this attract the mass what attracted the masses was Gandhi's poverty was Gandhi's willingness to lead the irritations of the poor as far as these issues were concerned there was only a very small minority who followed Gandhi and here therefore as Bhagat Singh pointed out in a very insightful note as early as 1930s Jawaharlal Landru was singular he offered something which the peasants and the poor could understand learn reform, learn to the killer public sector in control of industry people rights for men and women abolition of the caste system these were things which Indian people could be roused to aspire and ideas are particularly mentioned the Karachi resolution the fundamental rights resolution of 1931 was passed by the Congress in which it was promised that there would be mass coverage all women would have the rights to work there could be the quality of women men and women before the law there would be land reform, land to the killer there would be control of basic industries and free education and so forth now it was the Karachi resolution which was the blueprint for free India in its election manifesto for the 1937 election which was in fact issued in 1936 ahead of the election and the manifesto for the 1946 elections Congress repeated the promises of the Karachi resolution and therefore when independence came in 1947 there was a great decision to be taken you know and I will not go into detail communalism grew again muslimly passed the Lahore resolution of 1940 which was within two or three years crystallized as a demand for Pakistan in the meantime but on a much smaller scale Hindu communalism also grew in 1922 Savarkar who had secured his release from the Andaman by an apology which everyone knows about now turned his guns not on the English but on the muslims and spoke of Hindutva and of two nations much before Jinnadi and the RSS also continued its program anti muslim activity anti congress activity all actually in meaning that they were collaborating with the British on the side they might now of course put Dindian upadhyal's name here and there they might now cast try to cast out Nehru's name as far as they can but the fact is that they have no hero out of their own ranks was the national star declared as other heroes because they were so out collaborators and the collaborators of the world saw who would see the communal fire and therefore they are at power with muslimly leaders they did nothing for independence they did their actions always brought partition nearer when you say that Hindus and muslims are two nations you are asking for partition but I think we must acknowledge with gratitude the fact that 70 years ago the congress by command including Vallabhbhai Patel decided that India shall be a secular and democratic state the word secular and democratic was widely used at that time it is not as a secularism was placed on the constitution in 1976 so it was a new thing the idea was already there and the second idea was that India should have economic development a development between which the poor will be cared for not a development like that of Japan not a development like that of other some other countries almost all capitalist countries where the rich got richer and the difference between rich and poor went on increasing these were the two broad ideas which commanded attention and then of course the third one was social reform India needed to liberate its women India needed to protect its untouchables these were two major issues before the Indian republic of course we became a republic later on in 1950-26 January 1956 I recognize being a young recruit to the communist movement in 1949 that in demanding that the in government of India at that time should grow faster grow faster and have a socialist program and that in effect denouncing it as the government of the hypocrisy or the manyocracy in India and later on as an agent of British imperialism we were in gross error we were in gross error which we admitted and our leadership tried to correct and did correct in 1950-51 I would still say that 1950s were a heroic age for India we had a massacre in the Punjab Gandhi's grace first took place in January 1948 he was martyred on 20th and 30th January and of course those who had collaborated with the British and those who had joined the massacre celebrated his death even Vallabhbhai Patel whose name is now being touted around by the RSS said that they had murdered innocent Muslims they celebrate and that they celebrated Gandhi's murder the Indian people complete answer a totally direct answer to the Hindu Mahatabha and the RSS when in the elections of 1952 which was held as far as the Congress was concerned on the issue of whether women should have inheritance rights or not the issue of the Hindu code and that I think was a very important matter issue it was not a single issue it was an issue which concerned almost half of Indian people RSS, Hindu Mahatabha, Jansang and Ram Rajya Parish these four organizations came together totally to oppose the Hindu code and they were wiped out in the elections the only party opposed to the Congress which was elected was the Communist Party which was wholeheartedly in favor of the Hindu code the revision of the Hindu code revision for rights of dimension it's something to be remembered and that is why I say that 50s were a heroic age I don't feel that today the Hindu code could have been passed by this parliament 1955-56 I was then a student I think I was become a teacher by that time I read in the papers that the bill was presented that women should have half the share in the women that was in the original bill an amendment was word that they should have full share and despite the fact that the Congress had decided that they should have half the share its own members voted for the amendment including Prime Minister Nadek and so in Hindu code women got a share equal to men sisters and brothers they got a number of marriage rights and so on through their world limitations but think of the advance made previous and think of a parliament which could have passed that bill could it be passed today could a bill wiping out abolishing the Dharmashtra of 3000 years could it be passed today I doubt it it was at that time that the public sector began to be established Indian scientific institutes were established Nehru was saying that science should rule and everyone thought that India would be now a secular democratic republic India had after China the largest suffrage electoral people who voted the number of voters it was said it was the largest parliamentary democracy it was all established in 1950 there is another thing which also began then apart from planning and that was a total change in Indian economic direction in 1965 Sivathu Brahmanian obtained his degree PhD degree from Delhi University on his work on national income in the first half of the 19th century that is in the last 5-6 years nearly 50 years of British rule it was regarded as a classic work the final statement of national income and for a long time this work was used by many scholars in criticism of the nationalist critics of British rule and of historians who continued to criticize British rule because there was very little about tribute in it that was understated in it but in 2000 Sivathu Brahmanian issued his book which was now about national income in the 20th century nearly 50 years of British rule more than 50 years independence and you can see the change the national income graph for the British rule is an inflator or a plane it doesn't increase sometimes seems ridiculous and as soon as India becomes independent the graph the curve begins to rise and it begins and goes on rising in other words there was a fundamental change not only in political situation in India but also in the economic situation how do you explain this by a man who was so orthodox who has been so orthodox in his calculation always understating things when he now in his final judgment in his final report says that in 1946 finds that 1947 is really a break and then from around 1950 within 19 years by 1969 the national income in real terms the growth national product doubled itself doubled itself it might be regarded as a Hindu rate of growth but it was a rate of growth it was growth it was not decline it was not stagnation and the Hindu rate of growth was particularly important because it was in the crucial sector of industry you see not in services as at present in services actually you don't know whereas if one man pays another it may be in the name of service but the service may not be performed so without a poor man losing money and yet national income increases so service is very tricky the rate of growth of service means little but it was in the industry that the real growth occurred and that was the main achievement it's clear that there were problems within the regime problems of relationships with different countries notably relationships with Pakistan the Kashmir issue which again tended to influence India's relations with other countries the very unfortunate dispute with China which was still lingered which caused the 1962 fair scope and actually rather unfairly colored the impressions of Pandit Naru's regime Pandit Naru's left after 1964 still left him left behind immense prestige which Congress made use of and it must be said that under Indira Gandhi before emergency it took several steps like the nationalization of banks nationalization of insurance nationalization of coal mines which were important because it meant that the government of India was taking responsibility for the elimination of poverty in India it might not fulfill that responsibility but it did take up that responsibility and that was very important it was not socialism but it was certainly these were certainly important steps towards the welfare state and so in 1976 during emergency the word socialist-sexual were added were inserted into democratic into sovereign democratic republic so now the constitutional preamble read that India shall be a sovereign socialist-sexual democratic republic the emergency came I am not going into the reasons for this Jya Prakash Narayan's agitation the growing sense of IRS which participated in that agitation Indira Gandhi's personal difficulties because of the high court judgment against her all these contributed to emergencies and that was in fact a very great blow to Indian democracy for two years but the Indian people in the first election in which they had the opportunity to reject the emergency and for the first time they replaced Congress by a non-congress government at the centre but they did not sanction communists and this became true because it became obvious when they threw out the Janta government in 1980 elections because of the problems created within the Janta government by the Jansang element who began to immediately use that government for communal purposes in 1970, the 70 years is a long period so perhaps I should not be as detailed as I am 1980s seem to appear as an unenewable decade because Congress did not put any new measure into it and it was already involved in very unfortunate events like the greatest communal massacre after 1947-48 the massacre of six in Delhi and the round in 1984 following Indira Gandhi's assassination so these difficulties, political difficulties sometimes accidental, mounted but even in 1980s if one goes by Siva Subramaniam's figure Indian economy was freezing up and particularly now the success of the public sector and the industrial growth and protective tariffs that had been in place for about 30 years but now having the results and the planned economy at that time in late 1980s socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 events moved very swiftly and that I think was a very crucial moment for Indian ideological atmosphere ordinary people before 1989 middle class people recognized that India would be the socialist country not in the communist model perhaps not in that sect model but somehow or the other there will be a welfare state and it would be something which would be called socialism you remember that in 1980 even Jansang even BJP, Bharatiya Janta Party passed the resolution that they would their objective is to attain Gandhian socialism so socialism was something which even the RSS was forced to recognize that particular which was shared by almost every political party was greatly affected it must be recognized by the events of 1989 the whole vision collapsed and although the communist party and many thoughtful economists and thinkers still found that the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and Russia was the result of particular events and series of events and the cold wall pressure of military expenditure on these countries nevertheless it's clear that the ideological battleground now should and naturally the doors were open to communal feeling forget about India if you look at Muslim countries then 1990 is also the year from which socialist ideologies which were quite important in Arab countries even Nasir in Egypt claimed to be socialist the bosses who were socialist and who were fairly anti-religious were in power in Iraq and Syria I remember that when the Indian ambassador to Syria began to go to mosque in Damascus the Syrian government asked the Indian government what has happened to this man why is he going to mosque to pray so that was the kind of bosses government in Syria the year after 1990 they had to that particular the ideology began to weaken it weakened also in Israel where there was a strong Zionist socialist movement but which also collapsed so this was a worldwide phenomenon it affected India it was after all within 1.5 years of the fall of the Soviet Union that Babri Masjid was destroyed on December 6, 1992 and the entire situation in India changed in the next 7 years BJP was to come to power for the first time in 1999 and then govern in 2004 and then again come into power in 2014 clearly Advani was right that if you appeal to religion then people will vote for you I think Mr. Modi's main claim to same was the massacre of Muslims in 2002 in Gujarat which ensured his continuous election victories until his victory in the all India elections in 2014 this new communal offensive is of course successful not only because of this ideological shift in the world situation but also because of the economic shift the foreign exchange crisis that the fall of the Soviet block brought about in India this immense market could only be justified could only be tided over with the support of the IMF and the World Bank and therefore by following the Washington consensus which determined their conditions which were privatization of public sector withdrawal of all subsidies withdrawal of protective tariffs these were their conditions and whether some of the Indian ministers I don't know about Mr. Manohan Singh whether really they really believed in the measures of demolition of the public sector and demolition of protective tariffs and demolition of protection to our Indian industry I don't know but they had to make partly they had to fulfill the demand and therefore the plutocracy in India the large corporate sector reinforced by foreign direct investment has been gaining in power on the great companies and the great capitalists that's the party most suitable for big business and I think we should recognize that not only religion but also money comes in elections that has been it comes in the United States which is of course a literate country otherwise Mr. Trump would not have got elected and it comes in India where if you say a demonetization that after demonetization everyone would get two and two and a half lakhs so many people believe it so clearly money counts and now we are going to have electoral bonds which means that nobody would know which party a company had supported out of public money this would become more and more important so money factor in elections is not to be overlooked and therefore this is always this always means that there is a great weightage in elections however large the electorate in favor of big money and today big money is with the budget in this situation this would be the concluding part of my discussion here in this situation we must remember that there are different compartments in which the problem has to become and that there should be clarity this is the first point about secularism BJP also now after dejecting secularism for decades and decades they now proclaim that they are secular and that others are pseudo secular falsely secular we should examine that we should consider that secularism arose before the term was invented it arose partly in the US constitution of 1787 when state and church were separated but basically in France in 1789 to 1791 that source of law was disregard Christian teachings about marriage about inheritance about government about monarchy were all disregard French revolutionary leaders proclaimed either that they did not believe in God or that they believed in God but in no religion even Napoleon proclaimed that he did not until 1901 that Christianity could be tolerated in France just as Islam could be tolerated in Egypt although we don't believe in either Christianity or Egypt or Islam so this was the first manifestation of secularism then Holy York who invented the word secularism defined it in 1851 as adoption in which it is taken on the basis of human welfare in this world unaffected by what is attributed to God or what is to happen in the hereafter in future life in afterlife in fact I hope I am not distressing anyone I would like to remind you of Nehru's statements in his autobiography that only fools believe in afterlife Holy York did not go so far but he said that you know what happens in afterlife should be no concern of morality of state what religion says should be of no concern so actually there should be total separation of state and religion unfortunately in 1956 until which time everyone including even me when I was only a student in MA students until 1953 even I found that religion has nothing to do with state in the secular state Mustafa Kamal had established in in 1927 but Raja Krishnan in his book recovery of faith in 1956 says that while India is in India we mean differently such as we in India have a right to interpret the word however we like by secular he said we mean not that there is no God why a state should be for a secular state it should be important that there is a God or not a God I mean this Raja Krishnan didn't say but he said that in fact he spoke as if a secular state business is to recognize the unseen spirit as he put it or that religion is not relevant to life when as we have seen the whole issue in revolutionary France and in Holyoke that religion has nothing to do with actual practice actual state law so he said that that religion is not relevant to life and finally that religion secularism only means that one should tolerate all religions without making one religion giving one religion a higher or unique position at least that he recognized now unfortunately the supreme court and all our legal memories have jumped on Raja Krishnan's statement which has no sanction except his own opinion and they have now defined secularism in the manner that he had laid out so that in 2003 the supreme court appended NDA's decision to organize instruction in religion as they put it in schools whereas article 12 of the Indian constitution or some other article sorry totally prohibits religious instruction in government maintained institutions and prohibits making religious instruction compulsory in aided and recognized institutions so a direct statement of the constitution has been nullified by a judgment of the supreme court now of course this has opened the door to the RSS and the BJP of actually desecularizing the Indian state you can see it in Jet Lea's statement that while it is unfortunate that some people got killed when they carrying allegedly carrying meat but actually their crime was greater because they were allegedly carrying meat and the order is less a lesser crime than only on the alleged carrying of meat and in fact in the Junaid's case this was not also the case he belonged to a community which is that of wheat eater but he was not carrying any meat so unfortunately Radha Krinsan's statement muddying the waters for secularism has now reached such a stage that is other warning that no religion should be given a unique position is simply forgotten and I have seen that in legal sex sometimes the quotation ends with all this particular phrase that no single religion should be given a unique position this is excluded from the quotation secularism is therefore one very important issue on which one should stand up it's the whole issue of whether we will have a modern regime or we will have a reactionary communal religion it's only not the minority that will suffer all will suffer if religion is allowed a place in the secular state it should only should have a place in the private life of individual the second thing is that by muddying the waters of secularism the BJP is using that factor to invoke religion for its political purpose and finally it's of course the fight for all people because behind this is a totally capitalist path for India now I would like to end with two observations in 1950s and 60s and I am now assuming that some of my electric friends are here where in 1950s and 60s the communist party and then the communist parties frame their programs India did not have that industrial for anyone to say that socialism can be established so there were concepts like national democracy and people's democracy today the conditions are different urban population is nearly half of the total population by the 1921 census I am sure urban population will include rural population the latest economic data suggests that 50% of the Indian population living outside town produces only which is largely engaged in agriculture produces only 18% or 15% of the total GDP that is to say out of nearly 85% of GDP comes from industry and service sector industry perhaps not as much as mine because the service sector as I said is very tricky it is very difficult to believe in the figures but I am going by the official figures India is no longer a non-capitalist country it is a fully capitalist country it is a poor country where the distance between poor and rich is very great compared to for instance China where only 4% are below the poverty line is many times larger I think 27% it is a poor country but it is a capitalist country and therefore it has to be considered whether socialism the whole issue of socialism for such a country should be raised and that the entire issue of capitalism versus the working class and the working people should not be brought into sharper focus than we do these days the second point is that the ideology of this capitalist state being communal they are a capitalist state but it is not communalism France for example even England they can do without it Trump of course is going in that direction but many states but Indians capitalist state is peculiar because increasingly this regime is relying on communalism therefore the fight for defence of secularism becomes very important and what is nice for socialism and the defence for secularism are both connected because this communalism is the doctrine of the leading capitalist regime of the capitalist regime in India then obviously to weaken communalism means to weaken this capitalist regime this idea might not be shared by others but at least in the leftist circles and in the communist parties they should receive attention and in this case we should consider very frank, very honest whether smaller disputes with these parties with other opposition parties or matters so serious that we should not win the united front against the communal regime if we are convinced as I am convinced that communalism is today the major weapon of the capitalist regime as represented by political representative the BJP then it is equally important to unite all forces that can be united against this particular regime and then to say at this time that we pass such a resolution at that time we pass such a resolution at this time doesn't convince me what can convince me is not our past resolution but our present understanding our present problem our present issues what we are faced with what will happen to India if all opposition parties remain disunited and the present regime of the most you call it fascist or not I am not interested but if the present regime with its communal ideologies and the worst kind of favors given to capitalists if it continues and in that life I think it is very imperative that we think seriously that we do not just go by the realistic the aspects of what we pass we might have passed that someone cannot remain member of the Rajya Sabha for more than 10 years but that's not Marxism you know if we read it seems as if some of us don't read the history of the communist movement covered more as fores the communist party as the first party of France was I think for 30 years members of the national assembly so this is not Marxism this is something like a resolution of a club so let us go back to let us go to essential and open our minds that what is not only to protect secularism but also to protect the risk of India's social distribution thank you