| The dividing line 
between the two was the Western Express Highway to Gujarat. On the right lay the 
grounds of the Mumbai Resistance-2004, Against Imperialist Globalisation & 
War; on the left lay the sprawling venue of the World Social Forum. 
But, the dividing line lay deeper than the mere Highway. The first was led by a 
fusion of revolutionary and progressive organisations; the latter was led by a 
fusion of ruling-class social democrats and imperialist-funded NGOs. The first 
appeared serious; the latter appeared frivolous. The first appeared focussed 
towards some specific goal; the latter appeared directionless. The first had a 
clear-cut agenda; the other no apparent agenda. The first was propagated 
throughout the city through the massive wall-writing of hundreds of dedicated 
volunteers camping in Mumbai’s slums; the other was propagated through 
sponsorships in the bourgeois media and five-star press hand-outs. The first saw 
people attending at their own expense or through funds raised by them (or 
travelling ticketless when in a big group), the other saw the masses turning up 
on sponsorship (NGO) monies. The first released the Mumbai Declaration at 
the end; the other dissipated into nothingness at the end (except the resolve to 
repeat the jamboree once again next year at Porto Alegre).  While the content of 
the MR stood for a clear-cut anti-imperialist struggle, around which all the 
forces attending were united; the WSF, with no specific programme, witnessed the 
predominance of pro-globalisation ‘reformers’, hob-knobbing with a host of 
parliamentarians from 25 countries. MR resolved to continue the anti-imperialist 
struggle and, as a first step, joined the call to rally against the US invasion 
of Iraq — the March 20th 
Call. It had already declared that in struggles it was willing to unite with all 
forces, even those attending the WSF, and was reported to have invited all to 
join the Ad Hoc Committee formed for the March 20 actions. The WSF gave no call 
to action. 
 In spite of the 
money-power of the WSF constituents and the vociferous campaign against the MR 
by some leading NGOs and the CPM, the MR was able to attract all sections of the 
oppressed masses and progressive intellectuals to its programme. Workers, 
peasants, student/youth, dalits, Muslims, oppressed nationalities — all were 
seen attending the relevant workshops. The closing Plenary session was a rousing 
account of peoples’ struggles of all sections and classes, ranging from the mild 
resistance put up by various peoples’ struggles, to the revolutionary storms 
emanating from the Maoist movements in India, Nepal, Philippines and Turkey. The 
New Power in Nepal, led by the Maoists, was a living example of the "Other 
Possible World". Though differing in their ideologies, all stood firm 
against the policies of imperialist globalisation and war. Roughly 2,000 
registered from India and another 450 from abroad, representing 51 countries. 
While taking the anti-imperialist message amongst the people, MR teams had not 
only to face the attacks of the fascist Shiv Sena and police in Mumbai, but also 
of the CPM in West Bengal. While the WSF got full cooperation from the 
government and permission was given to their rally; the MR was reported to have 
faced numerous governmental/bureaucratic hurdles and the police disallowed 
permission for their rally. Even visas were denyed to the ILPS secretary and a 
senior ILPS functionary from the Philippines.  The WSF was dominated 
by Gandhian-type NGOs, big-name intellectuals for reforming globalisation — both 
rabidly anti-communist — and ruling class-social democrats. Though kept at 
low-key, present were the likes of Bardhan (CPI secretary), Yechuri (CPM PB 
member), Brazil Cultural Minister, and some 200 Members of Parliament from 
Europe and elsewhere. Mary Robinson, ex president of Ireland and UN Commissioner 
for Human Rights, promised to carry the WSF message to the WEF (World Economic 
Forum at Davos). The World Bank Chief, James Wolfensohn, sent his message saying 
"the dialogue in Mumbai can help restore a development oriented 
agenda.......... Let’s make 2004 a year of hope, of common engagement, a year in 
which we move ahead together to join forces and resources behind the shared 
vision of a balanced world". Even the chief guest at the rally was a pillar 
of the Indian reactionary system, the ex president of India, K.R.Narayan, who, 
during his entire term, took not a single step against the establishment, except 
for mouthing nice-sounding platitudes in general terms. In all this cacophony 
the so-called revolutionaries who sought to "impact the WSF by participation" 
were a mere voice in the wilderness; barely seen, let alone heard. Of the 2,400 
workshops/seminars, the ‘big-tent’ events were dominated by the organisers and 
their sponsors; while in the tiny workshops (accommodating upto 200) of the over 
2,000, a handful were granted to these ‘revolutionaries’. Besides, most of the 
discussions were sparsely attended, with the bulk of the delegates involved in 
the carnival outside. Drum-beating, sloganeering, dancing, singing, 
demonstrating (against who was not clear), etc, were the main attraction. 
Ironically, a few days later, the one-time hero of the WSF, the current Prime 
Minister of Brazil, Lula, was a chief guest of the BJP fascists at the Republic 
Day function.  
 With imperialist 
capital on a major offensive today, an important task is to develop the 
anti-imperialist forces in the country and around the world. This can only be 
done by the forging of the broadest possible alliance of the revolutionary 
forces with the other progressive forces, and by simultaneously widening the 
revolutionary mass base in the county and worldwide. The WSF (with its NGO/CPI/CPM 
content) seeks to break this alliance by keeping away the revolutionary forces 
(through its Charter and organisational methods) and wooing the other 
progressive forces. Having done so, they then seek to diffuse the discontent, 
through such amorphous gatherings without any direction — and tying these 
progressive forces to the apron strings of the ruling classes; whether 
social-democrats or imperialist-funded NGOs.  It is now clear, that 
those who became a part of the WSF had hardly any impact on those present there, 
reducing revolutionaries within it to insignificance, and, in a way, 
legitimising the reactionary forces that are leading the WSF. Those that 
boycotted the event led to the further distancing of the revolutionary forces 
from the progressive elements and the rank-and-file that attended the WSF. The 
present experience has proved this.  Also, the other two 
isolated events taken by some so-called revolutionary groups too had little 
impact on the thousands assembled in Mumbai and could have been just any other 
programme taken at any time of the year, through a mobilisation of their own 
mass base. On the contrary it was MR that had a political impact not only on 
many of the progressive forces in India, but also internationally. MR 
effectively drew a sharp line of demarcation between what is really 
anti-imperialist and what is pseudo anti-globalisation — not in splendid 
isolation, but amongst a wide section of the masses — i.e. trade unionists, 
peasants, dalits, peasants, women, Muslims and others. In addition, it was 
also observed that there was widespread distribution of a call given by the 
CCOMPOSA (Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties of South Asia) to those 
attending both MR and the WSF on their revolutionary programme of people’s war. 
Also a handbill signed by the three Maoist parties of the Philippines, Turkey 
and India was distributed at both events with a similar message. Other 
revolutionary forces, like the WPRM and the CPN(M), TKP/ML etc., too distributed 
their views at both venues. Revolutionary literature too was also being widely 
sold at both venues. So, while MR drew a 
clear-cut line on the question of anti-imperialism, the propaganda by the Maoist 
organisations was able, to some extent, carry the politics of people’s war in 
the two forums.  |