[Reader-list] Naxalite be not proud

[Shivam Vij शिवम् विज्]

Dear all,

In the context of recent discussions on Naxalism on this list, here is
a long ground report by Prashant Jha that appeared in December last
year in Himal South Asian magazine that you may find interesting:
http://www.himalmag.com/2007/december/cover_feature_india_naxatile.html

That cover story had an introduction which provides the context the
story should be read in:


     *

Conflict of narratives
http://www.himalmag.com/2007/december/conflict_of_narratives.html

A people's movement. India's greatest internal security challenge.
Struggle for the rights of the poor, Adivasis, Dalits, landless.
Compact Revolutionary Zone with influence in 180 districts. A
socio-economic problem rooted in exploitation and idealism. A
law-and-order threat. The revolution that will smash the Indian state.
The Maoists are ants and can be crushed at anytime.

Neat black-and-white portrayals have come to characterise one of the
most complex stories of our times: the Maoist as the saviour, the
state as the oppressor; the state as protector, the Maoist as villain.
Numbers and scale of action are considered sole markers of Maoist
spread and activity: 1608 incidents of Maoist violence and 677 people
killed in 2005; 1509 incidents and 678 killed in 2006; 249 people
killed till June 2007.

But this narrative hides more than it tells. Such as the fact that, in
reality, there is no one Maoist movement in India. Likewise, there is
no unified state response. The Communist Party of India (Maoist), born
in 2004 after the unity of the People's War Group (PWG) and the Maoist
Communist Centre, is at the forefront of the Maoist movement in India,
also commonly referred to as the Naxalite movement. Spread across
several states in varying degrees, with a common political and
military outlook, the Maoist movement is clearly national in
character, with the party organised into a command structure with the
stated aim of taking over state power.

Yet the Maoist movement nowadays looks significantly different from
Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Raipur in Chhattisgarh, Ranchi in
Jharkhand and Patna in Bihar. Go further, deeper in each state, and
Warangal, Dantewada, Hazaribagh and Jehanabad – datelines that
punctuate India's decades-long Maoist war – have more than their share
of differences. Like any other political formation, the Maoists may
adapt themselves to a specific set of dynamics, but the stark
variations remain significant. Indeed, they pose difficult questions
for those who portray the Maoist cause as a single movement, bent on
destroying the Indian state, and advocate a homogenous approach to
deal with the issue. Likewise, the Maoists themselves might not be
able to substantiate the claim that they represent the unified upsurge
of India's deprived and marginalised.