Red Chronicles

 India vs Burma: Nation-Building in the Post-Independence Era India and Burma (now Myanmar) both gained independence within a year of each other, with India in 1947 and Burma in 1948. Both nations were under British colonial rule, with diverse populations and significant regional divisions. Both also faced separatist insurgencies in their early years of independence. Yet, despite these similar starting points, India managed to build a relatively stable and unified national identity, while Burma has struggled with unity and stability. Why is this the case? The answer lies in the different approaches taken by the leadership of both nations during the crucial post-independence years. While India’s leaders succeeded in creating a unified nation, Burma’s leadership faltered, and the country has faced ongoing internal conflict and instability. This blog will explore the contrasting paths taken by India and Burma in nation-building, highlighting the significance of leadership, decision-ma...

 We already know that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took help from Japanese forces in his fight to oust the British Raj from India. This demonstrates his unwavering dedication to freeing India from colonial rule. The intention of this blog is not to question Netaji's patriotism or commitment but to critically examine whether his alliance with the Japanese Empire was a strategically sound decision. While it is impossible to know for certain what Japan would have done to India had it successfully captured Delhi and ousted the British, we can make a hypothesis by analyzing Japan's behavior in other occupied regions, including areas of British India such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and compare it with cases like Burma. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Japan successfully ousted the British and, in theory, handed over administration to the INA (Indian National Army). However, in practice, it was the Japanese forces that controlled the islands. During their occupation, Japan c...

 There is a concept in psychology called "cognitive dissonance", which refers to the discomfort people feel when their beliefs or views conflict with each other. To resolve this discomfort, individuals adjust their thoughts or actions to align with one view, reducing the inconsistency. Now, consider the issue of "inequality" in capitalism. Capitalism promises prosperity and success, yet it often results in high levels of inequality. The system thrives on inequality, where those with wealth, privilege, and connections are more likely to succeed. We are taught in schools and colleges that "equality" is necessary for prosperity, and that there should be equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of financial background. However, in a capitalist system, those with better financial resources, background, and networks are usually ahead in the race.  If you understand ''cognitive dissonance'', you can see how this inequality created by capitalism ...

 Look around, and you’ll find sadness and suffering everywhere. Happiness, true and enduring happiness, is a rare thing on this planet. The sources of this collective suffering are not hidden; they are in plain sight. Mental health crises, environmental degradation, extreme economic inequality, and an unrelenting culture of competition—all of these are visible to anyone willing to see. Yet, despite the glaring reality of these issues, we are conditioned to overlook them through the constant propaganda of mass media and advertising. These systems distract us from the root cause of our suffering—the ills of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is a system that relentlessly chases profit at the expense of human well-being and the planet's future. In its pursuit of profit, capitalism commodifies human attention—a resource once considered personal and invaluable. Through social media platforms, our time and focus are sold to the highest bidder. Companies exploit our emotions, playing on ...

 The Sino-Soviet split occurred after Nikita Khrushchev's de-Stalinization program, during which Mao accused Khrushchev of "revisionism." However, there are points I find puzzling: 1. When Mao accused Khrushchev of revisionism, was he referring to deviation from Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism? After all, Stalin himself introduced significant changes to Marxism-Leninism. 2. If Khrushchev did make changes to Soviet ideology, why was this such a big issue? Marxism is, after all, a dynamic and evolving theory. Ironically, Mao himself introduced numerous changes to Marxism, such as the emphasis on peasant revolution in China, so why did he cry "revisionism" in this case? 3. Isn't it hypocritical of Mao to accuse Khrushchev of "revisionism" during the Sino-Soviet split, yet later pursue rapprochement with the USA and even shake hands with Nixon? Wouldn’t such actions—aligning with a capitalist superpower—also qualify as revisionism? 4. On...

                                                        A NEW CLASS UNDER MARXISM?   In his writings, Marx consistently emphasized the need to gradually diminish class differences between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat during the socialist phase as a necessary step toward achieving a communist society. However, decades later, when the USSR and other Marxist-Leninist states were founded on the principles of Marxism-Leninism, these states often deviated from this vision. Instead of working to eliminate class distinctions, they created a new privileged class: the bureaucratic government elite. In the name of Marxism and the state, this elite controlled every means of production while remaining disconnected from the everyday struggles of ordinary people. They led lives of privilege, far removed from the harsh realities faced by the common popu...

                                                    STALINISM, MAOISM AS OPIUM OF MASSES   One of Marx's famous quotes is "Religion is the opium of the masses." In this context, "opium of the masses" refers to the things that distract or numb common people, preventing them from fully understanding their suffering and oppression. Decades later, figures like Stalin and Mao created their own cults of personality, turning Stalinism and Maoism into ideologies that attained the status of a monotheistic religion, based on Marxist theory. In traditional monotheistic religions, there is typically one infallible figure—someone whose word is unquestionable, who cannot make mistakes, and whose authority is absolute. In Stalinism and Maoism, Stalin and Mao themselves became such figures. Their words and actions were seen as final, and any dissent was ruthlessly ...

                                                MARXISM AS A WEAPON OF DEHUMANIZATION   Marx, in his writings, discussed how capitalism transforms human labor into a commodity that can be bought and sold, just like any other market product. He argued that capitalism dehumanizes workers by stripping away their humanity and creative potential, reducing their labor to mere market value. Through his theory, Marx sought to humanize workers and honor their labor as an expression of their true selves. However, history sometimes produces such ironies that we are left shocked by the outcomes. Two of history's most brutal dictators, Stalin and Mao, implemented policies that led to the deaths of millions, yet they continue to be honored in the communist world. Mao Zedong, in particular, acquired a "godfather" status in China, while Stalin became one of the most revered and f...

                                                    MARXISM VS LENINISM When Marx was developing his theory, he introduced the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which was meant to occur during the transitional socialist phase from capitalism to communism. However, Marx was vague about what this dictatorship would specifically look like. Some Marxists interpreted it as a democratic structure where workers would actively participate in the functioning of the government. On the other hand, Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Party, interpreted it as the need for a vanguard party that would impose a one-party dictatorship during this socialist phase. Lenin’s interpretation stemmed from his belief that capitalism would prevent the proletariat from developing class consciousness and revolutionary awareness on its own. Therefore, he argued that a top-...

                                                      MARXISM : FOR EMANCIPATION  OR  FOR OPPRESSION??? In the 19th century , there lived a man who goes by the name Karl Marx. He developed a theory during this century which we call now Marxism. One of the main aim of Karl Marx for developing his theory was to emancipate the common people mainly workers from brutal exploitation of capitalism and it's elites. He wanted to end all oppression which is done in the name of profit and envisioned a society where there will be no oppression. This was what basically Marx wanted to do while making his theory. But the society he envisioned did not turn into reality. his theory in turn was used to justify oppression on common people by figures like Stalin , Mao and other communist elites in different communist countries. such is the irony  or paradox (...

                                  Is there any god ? Suppose someone gets so much power that he can do anything, and that person decides to create a world with humans in it. If he is a good person at heart, it is natural that he will create a world where there is no sadness, no suffering, and everyone will be happy. However, if he is a sadistic person (someone who loves and enjoys seeing others suffer), he will create a world where there is mass suffering so that the sadistic creator can enjoy it. Now, no one can deny that mass suffering exists on Earth. Happiness is a rare commodity on planet Earth, but sadness and suffering are abundant. No one can also deny the fact that many religious scriptures proudly state that it is God who created the universe, planet Earth, humans—everything—and that God is all-powerful, all-good, and al...