http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\08\05\story_5-8-2010_pg3_5

Thursday, August 05, 2010

PURPLE PATCH: History will absolve me -Fidel Castro



 It is well known that in England during the 17th century two kings, Charles I 
and James II, were dethroned for despotism. These actions coincided with the 
birth of liberal political philosophy and provided the ideological base for a 
new social class, which was then struggling to break the bonds of feudalism. 
Against divine right autocracies, this new philosophy upheld the principle of 
the social contract and of the consent of the governed, and constituted the 
foundation of the English Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1775 
and the French Revolution of 1789. These great revolutionary events ushered in 
the liberation of the Spanish colonies in the New World - the final link in 
that chain being broken by Cuba. The new philosophy nurtured our own political 
ideas and helped us to evolve our Constitutions, from the Constitution of 
Guáimaro up to the Constitution of 1940. The latter was influenced by the 
socialist currents of our time; the principle of the social function of 
property and of man's inalienable right to a decent living were built into it, 
although large vested interests have prevented fully enforcing those rights.

The right of insurrection against tyranny then underwent its final consecration 
and became a fundamental tenet of political liberty.

As far back as 1649, John Milton wrote that political power lies with the 
people, who can enthrone and dethrone kings and have the duty of overthrowing 
tyrants. John Locke, in his essay on government, maintained that when the 
natural rights of man are violated, the people have the right and the duty to 
alter or abolish the government. Thomas Paine said that "one just man deserves 
more respect than a rogue with a crown".

The people's right to rebel has been opposed only by reactionaries like that 
clergyman of Virginia, Jonathan Boucher, who said: "The right to rebel is a 
censurable doctrine derived from Lucifer, the father of rebellions."

All these reasons support men who struggle for the freedom and happiness of the 
people. None support those who oppress the people, revile them, and rob them 
heartlessly. How can Batista's presence in power be justified when he gained it 
against the will of the people and by violating the laws of the Republic 
through the use of treachery and force? How could anyone call legitimate a 
regime of blood, oppression and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a 
regime which has gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public 
life around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of a 
court whose duty was to defend the constitution? With what right do the courts 
send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their country by giving their 
own blood, their own lives? All this is monstrous to the eyes of the nation and 
to the principles of true justice!

Still there is one argument more powerful than all the others. We are Cubans 
and to be Cuban implies a duty; not to fulfil that duty is a crime, is treason. 
We are proud of the history of our country; we learned it in school and have 
grown up hearing of freedom, justice and human rights. We were taught to 
venerate the glorious example of our heroes and martyrs. Céspedes, Agramonte, 
Maceo, Gómez and Martí were the first names engraved in our minds. We were 
taught that the Titan once said that liberty is not begged for but won with the 
blade of a machete. We were taught that October 10 and February 24 are glorious 
anniversaries of national rejoicing because they mark days on which Cubans 
rebelled against the yoke of infamous tyranny. We were taught to cherish and 
defend the beloved flag of the lone star, and to sing every afternoon the 
verses of our national anthem: "To live in chains is to live in disgrace and in 
opprobrium" and "to die for one's homeland is to live forever!" All this we 
learned and will never forget, even though today in our land there is murder 
and prison for the men who practice the ideas taught to them since the cradle. 
We were born in a free country that our parents bequeathed to us, and the 
island will first sink into the sea before we consent to be the slaves of 
anyone.

It seemed that the Apostle would die during his Centennial. It seemed that his 
memory would be extinguished forever. So great was the affront! But he is 
alive; he has not died. His people are rebellious. His people are worthy. His 
people are faithful to his memory. There are Cubans who have fallen defending 
his doctrines. There are young men who in magnificent selflessness came to die 
beside his tomb, giving their blood and their lives so that he could keep on 
living in the heart of his nation. Cuba, what would have become of you had you 
let your Apostle die?

I come to the close of my defence plea but I will not end it as lawyers usually 
do, asking that the accused be freed. I cannot ask freedom for myself while my 
comrades are already suffering in the ignominious prison of the Isle of Pines. 
Send me there to join them and to share their fate. It is understandable that 
honest men should be dead or in prison in a Republic where the president is a 
criminal and a thief.

I know that imprisonment will be harder for me than it has ever been for 
anyone, filled with cowardly threats and hideous cruelty. But I do not fear 
prison, as I do not fear the fury of the miserable tyrant who took the lives of 
70 of my comrades. Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.

(The extract is taken from a speech made on October 16, 1953 by Fidel Castro in 
his own defence in court)

Fidel Castro is one of the primary leaders of the Cuban Revolution


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to