[Reader-list] Fwd: The Government's Planned "Offensive" in Adivasi and Forest Areas

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Shuddha and Nagraj

First of all, I think the first categorical thing to be stated and which
must be stated is that, violence in any form is wrong, be it that
perpetrated by the Naxalites, or by the state. If God forbid, one of my
relatives is killed because he/she is a Hindu (hypothetically say by a
Muslim), I may in my anger go and kill the Muslim who did it, but that would
never mean that my action is right. (Though I may not get a death sentence
for that as per the manner and conduct of judgement in India) To justify the
violence of Naxals would be akin to justifying my action as well in the
example I stated.

This is extremely important since Naxalism has been said to emerge out of
the reasons of the failure of the state in discharging its responsibilities,
and the exploitation of the tribals, and their disenchantment with the state
due to their inhumane treatment at the hands of the authorities.If this were
to be accepted, Bhopal gas victims should also organize bomb blasts tomorrow
till Warren Anderson was extradited and brought to India to be sentenced for
crimes against humanity!!

I accept that Naxalism is not merely a law and order problem, but it doesn't
mean that it's right. It neither means that I support the state action
against Naxalism as well. But then, I can't say that the state's action is
wrong and the Naxal action is right, for after all, they didn't secure a
democratic legitimacy of their actions from the people they claim to support
as well. And even if they did so, the question of human rights will still
remain. If the Naxals, tribals, Dalits, Blacks, have their human rights, so
do the policemen, the paramilitary forces and those serving the state in
their capacities.

I also have the least of sympathies for the Indian state. It is only reaping
what it had sown. If the Indian state had forgotten the logic of
practicality (or pragmatism)  as well as order and stability (in which Godse
& Nehru joined hands to kill Gandhi's ideas), we wouldn't have had come to
this passe. Today, India is democratic in name only. Elections don't
constitute democracy; listening to each other's views and respecting them
does. Understanding the issue, disseminating proper and requisite
information among the people, channelizing proper discussions so that more
can get an idea about the issue, and then take stands on it, is what
constitutes real democracy. But we were more concerned about being a
pragmatic and order state (not to be anarchic, which is what Gandhi was not
against but Godse & Nehru were), and the end result is there for all to see.


In the name of order, Naxals have to be silenced. In the name of development
and scientific temper, dams have to be built (or even SEZ's) and tribals
have to be resettled. Never mind the fact that even the oustees of the
Hirakud dam built during Nehru's times have not been compensated adequately
by the Indian authorities; now it seems the entire countryside is up for
grabs. As if farmer's suicides were not enough, the govt. has now thought of
an adequate plan to get rid of these suicides, by simply grabbing the
farmers' land and forcing them into urban slums (to constitute as
appeasement-based vote banks).

All this still doesn't support the Naxalite point of view. The Naxals have
turned what was a battle for people's rights into an unnecessary ideological
battle. Since I have read a little bit about China, I can certainly say that
Mao was no textbook style communist, he was only a pragmatist who believed
in securing power for himself, and whatever were the means to do it, he did.
The fact that he didn't stop his wife from trying to use his name to get her
personal works done (including allowing her to gain substantial control of
the armed militias), as well as the use of the Cultural Revolution to ensure
that he was not sidelined, are a testimony to this fact.

The Naxals have learnt from Mao to only ensure they are considered
important, and have been waging a struggle which is hopeless for the very
people they are fighting for. First of all, they claim that they can fight
the Indian state, whose brutality is already well documented and known going
by the experiences of Kashmir and the North-East. And if that is not enough,
Salwa Judum is there for all to see. Even nationalists among my friends
dislike the Salwa Judum, but of course, for the Naxals, such movements only
help in getting recruits for their false movement.

As if that was not enough, they attack the policemen and kill informers as
well. What will that help in, or how can that help in serving their
ideology? They have been forcing landowners to pay hafts or extortion money
in return for protecting them. How is this different from what the Shiv Sena
used to in Mumbai during the 70's and the 80's, particularly from the
non-Marathis? And was/is that justifiable? They have been extorting those
trucks which operate in the area, the rich people, even businessmen as well
as those who employ tribals for tendu-patta collection (an important
economic activity in Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh). But all through the
power flowing from the barrel of the gun (as Mao said). In that sense, how
are they different from the state?

The only difference is that the state fought for the 'rich', the Naxals
fight for the 'poor'. But their means are wrong, and when means are wrong,
what's the use of even having the right 'ends'?

Let's not forget the man who was made the father of the Nation (ironical
because neither did he want honor for himself, nor did he believe in the
kind of nation he has been made father of), and his sayings. He has
categorically said in his own biography: 'Both means and ends are
important'. People sympathize with Naxals because they fight for the poor.
Sympathy for the poor however doesn't and shouldn't mean that we take guns
and start killing those serving in the district administration. It means
fighting for institutional changes so that we may die, but those who are
unfortunately born poor in the future generations, have their rights secured
for them and are able to live with dignity.

Institutional building is not an easy task, I accept. And before others say
anything, let me even further add and say that I personally am a very
violent human being. The dreams I experience of violence are even beyond
description, and my own self is shocked with such images which I have in my
mind. But that never means that I accept those activites are right; they
would never be in any situation. Hence, we have to think of ensuring that
institutions (be they political, economic, cultural or social,
administrative) work and work well. And that would require going beyond the
paradigm of violence and use of innovative ideas coupled with time-tested
means to solve problems. It does take time, but it is the only right method
we have. And we can't give up on it, come what may. We don't have a choice.

If the Naxals had done what Jean Dreze, Aruna Roy, Amartya Sen and others
have done, they would have done the Indian state a great service. Their
objective of changing the nature of the Indian state would have been
achieved long ago, considering they started in 1967 and it has been 42 years
since then. Their cause is right, but with such wrong means, they will only
help destroying the tribals and others they claim they fight for.

As for the Indian state, all state-supporters of violence should realize
that legitimate authority to conduct violence (considered an inherent part
in definition of state by Max Weber) doesn't mean that the state uses
violent means to silence all dissent and do as those controlling the state
please. It means that violence should only be used as a strategically
defensive measure to be used only when the freedoms and rights of people are
under threat (specifically physical threat, including that of loss of lives
or physical injury). Otherwise, that legitimacy will only be eroded to give
more fodder for Naxals. And anyways, intrinsically it would still remain
wrong, come what may. (because of the human rights argument).

Which is why I don't support the current action of the govt, and the
intention they are fighting for (both what they claim and that I think they
are actually fighting for)

Rakesh