Talk:M. K. Pandhe

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of ability to talk about specific issues

The writer anilankv says: "To have talk on edit be bold enough to edit as a visible user instead of being a anonymous one". I am not here to challenge and win any game. Except two or three lines, the entire article is published by me, referring many sources (as on 20th Aug 2011). If I am spamming or publishing nonsense, why I have to publish nearly 40 lines of a 45 line article? The contribution of gentleman who challenges here is almost nil (except punctuation marks and comas.) Unfortunately to contribute is more difficult than challenging. I have clearly asked, to point out specific cases where the sources are not provided. But no answer. Those who think others are not "bold", represent certain category. I am sorry, I believe, I am from a civilized background. After all, what do I achieve editing these pages fighting with people from such category? People and time will judge if what I write here is right or not. And I gave reference to each major point. The paragraph is removed without any valid reason. And these are self-claimed "bold" editors of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.242.202 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why user Anilankv respond to the points on the discussion page? Please avoid editing with neative approach. Every communist worker knows past facts. If author has some argument support, may discuss here. The reference news have one or two lines supporting the relevant content. The whole content may not be discussed by one single reference. Please remember you are editing about Communist inner party struggles, they are not supposed to discuss them openly and mainstream news media dont give much space to such news. Need to refer to different reports to collect relevant points. In fact, recent meeting of the Central Committee of the CPI (M) discussed and dismissed this controversial points. Chinese line proposed by Sitaram Yechury. Another member of the Polit Bureau Raghavalu led another opinion that rejected categorically the line of Bengal leaders. PB member of Bengal Budhadeb boycottéd CPM meeting in protest. Finally, Central Committee rejected the proposal of Sitaram Yechuri with the voice of the majority, which is against the Cuban line or official draft document line-- strongly rejected the Chinese line endorsed Cuba's path or that of Latin America Left. Content publishers please support their editing with facts or help prevent a destructive approach. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.5.86 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The editor anilankv has no intention to contribute to this page, but is making consistent effort to remove valid content. If his/her intention is to contribute any useful content, why shy away from an open discussion? The editor is not even bothered to read what is edited. The index number of the discarded citation is still part of edited version. If editor indeed read an edited content, he/she can easily notice such a residuum. This is indicative of a prejudiced approach and reckless disregard for the accuracy of the published material.

There are some issues relevant here. The Wkileaks revealed beyond any doubt, there are serious ideological differences within CPI(M). American cable leaked by Wikileaks, says that "Yechury leads the CPI(M)’s moderate wing, which stands opposed to the more doctrinaire policies of General Secretary Prakash Karat." . Relevant question is in which section Pandhe belonged to. He should have some view at least. Wikileaks, which is never denied by any CPIM leaser, added: "The best of a bad lot, Yechury is an intelligent interlocutor who can potentially help us curb the Communists’ worst tendencies." . If USA says "curb the Communists’ worst tendencies", that means Marxist-Leninist line. If USA expects some Yechuri may be useful to fight against some other line of CPI(M), it shows, there are at least two lines. Which are they? Read further: "Buddhadeb as also lamenting the fact that long-term politicians and outdated ideology continue to overwhelmingly dominate the Left in India. He contrasted this with the technocrats and other experts that now have power within China’s communist party, the cable said" . When Budhadeb says outdated ideology and leaders, he means Prakash Karat, M.K.Pandhe, V.S.Achuthanandan, Biman Bose and the like. And when he is all praise for "Technocrats and other experts" he is not only echoing World Bank model, which promote technocrats to push its agenda, but indicates he prefer people like Nilotpal Basu to come in leadership. "Imperial Nature The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization" by Goldman explains it is World Bank which promote "Technocrats and other Experts" to replace mass leaders so that they dont face resistance from Elected representatives. That means, Budhdeb is actually advocating for World-Bank supported line. And question is- who opposed this line within CPI(M)?. If no-one opposed Budhadeb's line, why USA diplomats have to lament about curbing the worst tendencies of CPI(M)? There is not much scope for a debate here. But the above given links shows there are serious ideological differences within CPI(M). In fact, the just concluded Central committee was presented and Ideological Line and a critical note by Yechuri and Raghavulu presented another note rejecting Chinese Line. Raghavulu and others are critical of Yechuri's note. And these are all widely reported in the mainstream press. The question is- when there are major differences on economic policies and when a group led by Budhadeb, Nirupam Sen and others push for Neo-liberal agenda, each polit buro members are expected to take some stand. Either a member may 1) oppose Neo-liberal stand, 2)Endorse such a reformative line 3) Take a neutral stand.

There is a need to clarify, what stand M.K. Pandhe took on this issue. That is relevant in this Wikipedia article. Either the editor should come with his/her own evidences to show M.K. Pandhe was indeed supporting Budhadeb's Neo-liberal stands or let him/her clarify what stand he took. Arbitrarily removing the content without valid facts indicates, either ignorance or lack of responsibility. And the inability to contribute even a single point to the article is evident. Yes, copied and pasted some superfluous parlance, which doesnt present anything new. But there is no single point added.

Obviously to hide his/her inability to contribute anything, editor has indeed added a few words. This is what editor has added: "Dr. M.K.Pandhe was a dedicated Marxist-Leninist.He strove consistently to equip the working class movement with the ideology of socialism and to develop the political consciousness of the workers to enable them to discharge their revolutionary role in social transformation for a better world" -- What is added by anilankvi

Now see the official website of CPI(M): "As a dedicated Marxist-Leninist, Pandhe strove consistently to equip the working class movement with the ideology of socialism and to develop the political consciousness of the workers to enable them to discharge their revolutionary role in social transformation. -- CPI(M)'s official Website . .

The actual contribution of the editor is "the world". Should Wikipedia encourage editors who arbitrarily remove content, refuse to participate in any open discussion and who are arguably, not capable of adding any serious content?

What is given in CPI(M)'s official page was not present in wikipedia, when the original 40plus line article was written. Obviously, the original article in Wikipedia was not motivated by any political view. But the reckless destruction by anilankavi is. These words are also part of CPI(M) official communique reported in the press. All major newspapers reported this as quoted from CPI(M) sources. anilankvi presented it as his version to misguide public. Is it according to the policy of Wikipedia? If editor's intentions were fair, why he refused to give the reference, after all, he/she is complaining about lack of reference by other editors.

The words added by our respected editor is copied from CPI(M)'s official website. Is wikipedia a mirror site of the official mouth organ of a political party? The editor, appears to be acting on behalf of some other power-centers, within CPI(M). Should Wikileaks readers presented what is published in Party Journal or neutral point of view?

anilankvi first edited this article at 09:48, on 20th August 2011. He/she never added anything significantly to the original article, then or later, except the above quoted lines. He added the above lines at 13:26, on 21st August 2011. It is obvious, he/she has no intention to contribute anything and his/her motive is clear from what and from where he copied and pasted. "He strove consistently to equip the working class movement with the ideology of socialism and to develop the political consciousness of the workers to enable them to discharge their revolutionary role in social transformation for a better world". And this is copied and pasted from this source: ") Please discuss this. If M.K. Pandhe himself supported Chinese line (See the Wikileaks Cable- Budhadeb actually used the phrase "Chinese Line" which is rejected by the just concluded Central Committee with a majority voting. Media reports shows- Raghavulu, Gautam Deb, Thomas Isaac and others supported the so-called "Chinese Line". Senior leaders like Raghavulu, VS Achuthanandan and others opposed Chinese line.

The other question the editor has to answer is, why Budhadeb is not attending Polit Buro meetings consistently? These are all indicative of the serious ideological differences within CPI(M). It is well known that, under the leadership of Nilotpal Basu, hired elements were recruited to CPI(M) controlled forums. Under the leadership of Nilotpal Basu, a private internet based group called Pragoti (There is a private Yahoo Group and a Web Portal controlled by this group, which is against CPI(M)'s official line) was started and these people are instructed to campaign for their line as part of their strategy to capture Party leadership. A significant number of them are now activists of Free Software Movement and they are an organized group in many states. Though Free Software movement has activists from BJP also, CPI(M)' neo-liberal leadership is utilizing the service of these activists to propagate their line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.247.183 (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M. K. Pandhe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406122559/http://www.asianage.com/india/will-buddhadeb-reinvent-himself-761 to http://www.asianage.com/india/will-buddhadeb-reinvent-himself-761

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M. K. Pandhe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007091126/http://www.cpim.org/xix%20cong/0207200pb%20members.htm to http://www.cpim.org/xix%20cong/0207200pb%20members.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)