Thousands pay tribute to veteran Indian communist leader
VS, as he was popularly known, died on Monday at the age of 101. He was a founding member of India's largest communist party and a former chief minister of the southern state of Kerala.
Tens of thousands of people have thronged the streets to pay tribute to the politician, widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in Kerala's political history.
Forced to drop out of school as a child, Achuthanandan overcame grinding poverty and torture in police custody to become one of the state's most beloved leaders.
He was being treated at a hospital in Thiruvananathapuram after suffering a cardiac arrest last month. His funeral will be held near his hometown in Alappuzha district with full state honours.
"Fighting for the rights of the oppressed and the exploited was the guiding principle of his life," MA Baby, general secretary of Achuthanandan's party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M), wrote in tribute. He described the leader as "the epitome of struggle".
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, also from the CPI(M), called Achuthanandan a "limitless repository of inspiration and lessons".
Apart from being Kerala's chief minister, Achuthanandan was the state's leader of opposition three times and a member of the CPI(M)'s Politburo for 23 years.
Achuthanandan's popularity among Indian communists rivals only that of Jyoti Basu, the long-serving West Bengal chief minister and CPI(M) co-founder.
But unlike the London-educated Basu, Achuthanandan came from humble roots and didn't finish school. While Basu shaped his legacy in power, Achuthanandan did so from the streets, championing people's issues as an opposition leader.
Achuthanandan started working young after losing his mother at four and father at 11. As a teen in a coir factory, he joined the undivided Communist Party at 17 and began organising agricultural workers in Travancore in then British-ruled India.
AK Antony, a former Kerala chief minister from the Congress party, said that as a school student in the 1960s, he would wait beside paddy fields to listen to Achuthanandan's speeches.
"Achuthanandan's life and struggles and the torture and beatings he endured in the vanguard of the communist agitations for bonded agriculture workers in Kuttanad are unequalled and historical," he was quoted as saying by The Hindu newspaper.
Achuthanandan led a 1946 revolt against the state authorities, in which hundreds of communists were reportedly killed. He went underground, was later arrested, tortured in custody, and spent five years in jail.
His work spanned labour rights, land rights, education, women's right, anti-corruption measures and environmental protection.
A staunch communist, Achuthanandan wasn't afraid to defy his party - most notably when he met the widow of TP Chandrasekharan, murdered in 2012 by a gang that included former CPI(M) colleagues after he broke away to form his own party.
After public outcry forced the CPI(M) to reverse its attempts to sideline him in 2006 and 2011, Achuthanandan served as Kerala's chief minister (2006–2011) before retiring from public life following a 2019 stroke and living with his son in Thiruvananthapuram. — BBC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
20 hours ago
- Arab News
Camp David meeting 25 years on: Could the Middle East plan have worked?
LONDON: Emerging from lush woodland, amid birdsong and with wide smiles, it was a scene that could not have been further from the slaughter currently unfolding in Gaza. Yet through the quarter of a century that has passed since the Palestinian and Israeli leaders joined President Bill Clinton for talks at Camp David, a direct line can be drawn to the daily massacres Palestinians are now facing. What began with cautious optimism to make major headway toward a final status peace agreement ended in failure on July 25, 2000. Clinton solemnly 'concluded with regret' that after 14 days of talks, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had not been able to 'reach an agreement at this time.' Israel and the US media perpetuated a myth that Arafat had turned down a generous offer of a Palestinian state. Palestinians and other diplomats involved say Israel was offering nothing of the sort. Within weeks of the talks ending, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited Haram Al-Sharif, the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque, in Jerusalem, igniting the Second Palestinian Intifada uprising against Israeli occupation. While the talks have gone down in history as a failure, the six months that followed culminated in what many believe was the closest the two sides have come to a final status agreement. But by the start of 2001, with Clinton out of office, Israeli elections looming, and violence escalating, the window of political timing slipped away. Many were left to wonder whether the mistakes made during the Camp David meeting resulted in a missed opportunity that could have led to an agreement, thus altering the course of Middle East history. Perhaps decades of episodes of bloodshed and occupation could have been averted. With hindsight aside, is there anything that can be learned from those two weeks of negotiations that brought together the leaders from either side? The talks at Camp David convened eight years after the first of the two Oslo Accords was famously signed in 1993 between Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House. The agreement was designed as an interim deal and the start of a process that aimed to secure a final status agreement within five years. Under Oslo, Israel recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian side recognized Israel. The agreement led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority to have limited governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel had annexed in 1967 along with East Jerusalem. A phased Israeli military withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories was also meant to take place. By the year 2000 it was clear that the Oslo process had stalled with Palestinians deeply unhappy about the lack of progress and that the Israeli occupation had become more entrenched since the agreement. The building of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land had accelerated, restrictions against Palestinians had increased, and violence continued. Clinton, who was in the final year of his presidency, was determined to push for a blockbuster agreement to secure his legacy. Arafat, on the other hand, was strongly against the talks taking place on the grounds that the 'conditions were not yet ripe,' according to The Camp David Papers, a detailed firsthand account of the talks by Akram Hanieh, editor of Al-Ayyam newspaper and close adviser to the Palestinian leader. 'The Palestinians repeatedly warned that the Palestinian problem was too complicated to be resolved in a hastily convened summit,' Hanieh wrote. Barak came to the table also looking to seal a big win that would bolster his ailing governing coalition. He was looking to do away with the incremental approach of Oslo and go for an all-or nothing final agreement. The leaders arrived on July 11 at Camp David, the 125 acre presidential retreat in the Catoctin mountains. The secluded forested location was cut off further with a ban on cell phones and just one phone line provided per delegation to avoid leaks. It was something Clinton joked about when he greeted Arafat and Barak before the press, saying he would not take any questions as part of a media blackout. There was even a lighthearted moment when Arafat and Barak broke into a gentle play fight as they insisted one another entered the lodge first — an image unthinkable in the current climate. But behind the scenes there was less joviality and deep concern grew among the Palestinian camp about how the talks would unfold. The core issues to be discussed included the extent of territory that would be included in a Palestinian state and the positioning of the borders surrounding them. There was also the status and future of Israeli settlements, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees displaced when Israel was founded in 1948. What proved to be the most contentious issue, and the one the US proved to be least prepared for, was the status of Jerusalem, and in particular sovereignty over its holy sites. Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state with full sovereignty over Haram Al-Sharif — the third holiest site in Islam. The site, known as the Temple Mount by Israelis, is also revered by Jews. Because nothing was presented in writing and there was no working draft of the negotiations, there are differing versions of exactly what the Israelis proposed. Israeli claims that Barak offered 90 percent of the West Bank along with Gaza to the Palestinians turned out to be far less when applied to maps. Israel also wanted to maintain security control over the West Bank. Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank, including its major settlements there in exchange for 1 percent of Israeli territory. Israel would keep most of East Jerusalem and only offer some form of custodianship over Haram Al-Sharif, nowhere near Palestinians demands. And there was nothing of substance on returning refugees. While US media interpretations of the talks often claimed the two sides were close to an agreement, Hanieh's account describes big gaps between their positions across the major points of contention. With a sense of foreboding of what was to come, Hanieh wrote: 'The Americans immediately adopted Israel's position on the Haram, seemingly unaware of the fact that they were toying with explosives that could ignite the Middle East and the Islamic world.' The fact the proposals were only presented verbally through US officials meant that nothing was ever formally offered to the Palestinians. Barak's approach meant 'there never was an Israeli offer' Robert Malley, a member of the US negotiating team, said in an article co-written a year later that sought to diffuse the blame placed on Arafat by Israel and the US for the talk's failure. The Israeli leader's approach and failures over implementing Oslo led Arafat to became convinced that Israel was setting a trap to trick him into agreeing major concessions. The Palestinians also increasingly felt the US bias toward Israel's position, and that all the pressure was being applied to Arafat. This undermined the US as an honest broker. 'Backed by the US, Israel negotiated in bad faith, making it impossible for Palestinians to consider these talks a foundation for a just peace,' Ramzy Baroud, the Palestinian-American editor of the Palestine Chronicle, told Arab News. 'The talks were fundamentally designed to skew outcomes in Israel's favor.' Another reason for the failure was the lack of ground work carried out before they started. 'It was not well prepared,' Yossi Mekelberg, associate fellow of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, told Arab News. 'They went there with not enough already agreed beforehand, which is very important for a summit.' The US hosting has also been heavily criticized, even by members of its own negotiating teams. 'The Camp David summit — ill-conceived and ill-advised — should probably never have taken place,' Aaron David Miller, another senior negotiator, wrote 20 years later. He highlighted 'numerous mistakes' and a poor performance by the US team that would have made blocked reaching an agreement, even if the two sides had been in a place to reach one. When Arafat held firm and refused to cave to pressure to accept Israel's proposals, the summit drew to a close with little to show toward a final status agreement. 'While they were not able to bridge the gaps and reach an agreement, their negotiations were unprecedented in both scope and detail,' the final statement said. There are various opinions on whether the talks were doomed to failure from the start or whether they can be viewed as a missed opportunity that could have brought peace to the region and averted the decades of bloodshed that followed. The latter viewpoint stems as much from the diplomatic efforts in the months that followed Camp David. Against a backdrop of escalating violence and during Clinton's final months in office, focus shifted to a set of parameters for further final status negotiations. Both sides agreed to the landmark plan in late December but with reservations. The momentum carried over to the Taba summit in Egypt three weeks later but the impending Israeli election meant they ran out of time. In the closing statement, the sides declared they had never been closer to reaching an agreement. With the arrival of President George W Bush in office and Sharon defeating Barak in Israel's election, political support for the process evaporated and the intifada raged on for another four years. 'It was a missed opportunity,' Mekelberg said of Camp David. 'There was a great opportunity there, and had it succeeded, we would not be having all these terrible tragedies that we've seen.' The way that Arafat was blamed for the failure left a particularly bitter aftertaste for Palestinians. 'The most egregious demonstration of Israel's and the US's bad faith was their decision to blame the talks' collapse not on Israel's refusal to adhere to international law, but on Yasser Arafat's alleged stubbornness and disinterest in peace,' Baroud said. The talks were 'unequivocally doomed to failure,' he said because they rested on the false premise that the Oslo Accords were ever a genuine path to peace. 'The exponential growth of illegal settlements, the persistent failure to address core issues, escalating Israeli violence, and the continuous disregard for international principles concerning Palestinian rights all contributed to Camp David's collapse.' He said if any lessons are to be taken by those attempting to negotiate an end to Israel's war on Gaza and implement a wider peace agreement, it would be that 'neither Israel nor the US can be trusted to chart a path to peace without a firm framework rooted in international and humanitarian law.' In the coming days, Saudi Arabia and France will co-chair a conference at the UN on the two-state solution to the conflict, that seeks to plot a course toward a Palestinian state. Perhaps this could help build the sustainable international framework that was lacking in July 2000.
Leaders
a day ago
- Leaders
Italian PM Calls Recognizing Palestinian State Before its Establishment ‘Counterproductive'
After the French President's surprise plan of recognizing the Palestinian state in September, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said on Saturday that the recognition of the state before its establishment could be 'counterproductive'. Italy Prioritizes Establishing Palestinian State Meloni said that she supported the Palestinian state, but she is not in favor of recognizing it prior to establishing it, according to Al Arabiya. 'If something that doesn't exist is recognized on paper, the problem could appear to be solved when it isn't,' she told Italian daily La Repubblica. Meloni's remarks came after French President Emmanuel Macron announced his plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. On Friday, Italian Foreign Minister revealed that recognizing a Palestinian state must align with recognition of Israel by the new Palestinian entity. UK Faces Mounting Pressure to Declare Recognition Meanwhile, the British PM has been facing mounting pressure to officially recognize Palestinian statehood, both from opposition lawmakers and from members of his own Labour Party government. On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an 'emergency call' with France and Germany to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The joint statement, issued after a call between Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, urged for an immediate ceasefire and said that 'withholding essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable.' Crucially, approximately 60 British Labour MPs have recently urged the UK government to immediately recognize the Palestinian state and halt what they labeled as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza, according to The Guardian. Germany Takes Different Path On the contrary, Germany is not planning to recognize the Palestinian state in the short term, according to Reuters. A German government spokesperson said on Friday that his country's top priority now is to make 'long-overdue progress' towards a two-state solution. Germany's position on Israel in the context of the Gaza war is deeply shaped by its sense of special responsibility to atone for the Holocaust, during which six million European Jews were killed under Hitler's regime between 1933 and 1945. Since the beginning of Hamas-Israel War in Gaza in 2023, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 57,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 137,000, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Related Topics: UK, France, Germany Urge Israel to End Gaza's Humanitarian Catastrophe Gaza Talks at Crossroads: US Pulls Negotiators as Mediators Report Progress UK to Hold Urgent Talks with France, Germany over Gaza War Short link : Post Views: 3
Leaders
a day ago
- Leaders
UK, France, Germany Urge Israel to End Gaza's Humanitarian Catastrophe
Britain, France and Germany are currently pressing on Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and put an immediate end to a 'humanitarian catastrophe,' according to The Associated Press. Urgent Call This move came after French President Emmanuel Macron announced his plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. On Thursday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would hold an 'emergency call' with France and Germany to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. 'I will hold an emergency call with E3 partners tomorrow, where we will discuss what we can do urgently to stop the killing and get people the food they desperately need while pulling together all the steps necessary to build a lasting peace,' he said in a statement on Thursday. The joint statement, issued after a call between Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, urged for an immediate ceasefire and said that 'withholding essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable.' The three leaders also stressed their readiness to take more steps to support an immediate ceasefire and a political process that ensures lasting security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region. Macron's Surprise Announcement Crucially, Macron's unexpected announcement revealed some differences among the European allies concerning how to end the Israel-Hamas war that has started in October 2023. The E3 supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in principle. However, Germany is not planning to recognize the Palestinian state in the short term, according to Reuters. A German government spokesperson said on Friday that his country's top priority now is to make 'long-overdue progress' towards a two-state solution. Germany's position on Israel in the context of the Gaza war is deeply shaped by its sense of special responsibility to atone for the Holocaust, during which six million European Jews were killed under Hitler's regime between 1933 and 1945. Mounting Pressure in UK As for the UK, the British PM has been facing mounting pressure to officially recognize Palestinian statehood, both from opposition lawmakers and from members of his own Labour Party government. British MP Jeremy Corbyn has recently unveiled an independent 'Gaza tribunal' to investigate the UK's involvement in Israeli genocide in Gaza, according to Arab News. The Independent MP, who was the former Labour Party leader, has been criticizing Israeli military operation in Gaza since October 2023. On June 4, Corbyn introduced a bill into the UK House of Commons urging the government to establish an independent inquiry into UK's complicity in Israeli war in Gaza, including the supply of weapons, surveillance aircraft and use of Royal Air Force bases. Independent Gaza Tribunal However, the bill was rejected at its second reading earlier this month. As a result, Corbyn announced that he would hold a Gaza tribunal in September as 'the public deserves to know the full scale of their government's complicity in genocide.' The British government has been facing increasing pressure from MPs, including many from its own Labour Party, to take a decisive step against Israel. Call for Palestinian State Recognition Approximately 60 British Labour MPs have recently urged the UK government to immediately recognize the Palestinian state and halt what they labeled as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza, according to The Guardian. A group of centrist and left-wing MPs write a letter this week to the Foreign Secretary David Lammy asking him to act immediately to stop Israel's reported plan to establish a so-called 'humanitarian city' of tents in the ruins of Rafah, in southern Gaza. 'By not recognizing [Palestine] as a state, we undermine our own policy of a two-state solution and set an expectation that the status quo can continue and see the effective erasure and annexation of Palestinian territory,' the letter said. The MPs also described the plan as 'ethnic cleansing' warning that such a move means the forcible transfer of civilians and the erasure of Palestinian presence as well. It is with great urgency and concern that we are writing to you regarding the Israeli Defense Minister's announcement on Monday of his plans to forcibly transfer all Palestinian civilians in Gaza to a camp in the ruined city of Rafah without allowing them to leave,' the letter added. Since the beginning of Hamas-Israel War in Gaza in 2023, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 57,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 137,000, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Related Topics: Gaza Talks at Crossroads: US Pulls Negotiators as Mediators Report Progress Canada Condemns Israel over Gaza's 'Humanitarian Disaster' UK to Hold Urgent Talks with France, Germany over Gaza War Short link : Post Views: 34
