[Reader-list] "Regenerate politics, recreate, nourish and expand the political space"

[Sanjay Kak]

The note below is part of a recent initiative, outside of formal
political parties, and an attempt to respond to the events in
Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa.
Best
Sanjay Kak

-------------------

A note on

The  Neo-Liberal Threat to the Survival of Adivasis

We are witnessing preparations for an unprecedented  para-military
offensive of massive proportions by the Government of India against
its own people, the most marginalized and impoverished mass of the
Adivasis inhabiting the heartland of the subcontinent, rich in mineral
and forest resources. Not that the Adivasis were treated as truly
equal citizens in the past six decades of independence. The difference
is that the policies pursued in the name of neo-liberal economic
reforms in the last eighteen years are now threatening their very
survival.

Neo- liberal economic reforms have created the crisis of livelihood
for the petty producers, particularly the small and marginal
peasantry. But this crisis has taken its most acute form as it affects
the Adivasis whose land, habitat and livelihood are threatened as
never before. The government machinery in collusion with the big
corporate capital, foreign as well as indigenous, have systematically
acquired, appropriated and grabbed land and forests. While the SEZ Act
is an unvarnished and unashamed onslaught under government auspices,
the market forces have unleashed more devastating, if less
transparent, assault. The laws intended to remedy the situation to
some extent such as  PESA and Forest Rights Act remain largely
unimplemented. The other belated remedial moves such as the Land
Acquisition Act( amendment) Bill and the Relief and Rehabilitation
Bill fall far short of providing any real relief. The anger welling up
over decades is bursting out .Clearly the Adivasis are experiencing a
profound  disenchantment not only with the governments of the day but
with the State of India.   The Maoists have seized this alienation and
declared an open war against the State and they are garnering the
growing support in the hills and forests, the traditional home to the
Adivasis.

The Maoists have renounced “ politics” that we have envisioned in
independent India. Some may argue that the Maoists have raised
“politics” to “a higher level”, given the government’s determination
to press ahead with the policies that have brought about the crisis
and unleash a virtual war on its own people and given also the rapid
atrophy of the democratic processes, on the one hand , and , the
deadening of the social  conscience, on the other. But no objective
assessment of the eventual outcome of the confrontation now unleashed
can ignore the utterly unequal nature of the “war” that is being
carried on.  If the things continue as they threaten to do, there is
only one outcome possible: unprecedented bloodshed, large scale
decimation and insurmountable alienation of the  surviving original
inhabitants of the Gondwana, the origin, the nursery and the heartland
of India as it morphed through the millennia . And then we will be
graduating ourselves to the ranks of the developed countries such as
USA and Australia with their bloody past of systematic decimation of
the masses of the original occupants of those lands.

While the Maoists have renounced “politics”, the mainstream political
parties have, through design or default, reduced politics on this
issue to nullity. The ruling party is ready to unleash a virtual war
on its own people: it is the inverted equivalent of the Maoist
renunciation of politics. The main opposition, BJP, and its mentor the
RSS, are more gung- ho in their warlike stance and have come out with
full- throated support to the government.  The mainstream Left appears
evasive and ambivalent. Are we witnessing the beginning of “the End”
of politics, as we know it and hoped for in independent India?

The  challenge of our times is to regenerate politics, to recreate,
nourish and expand the political space.

In the past when issues arose, movements emerged : The movements were
not initiated or propelled by the structured political parties. A
leader who sensed the anguish and anger of the masses moved on and the
caravan burgeoned behind him. No organization , no resources, no flag:
there was no paraphernalia of political party sustaining the movement,
although as the momentum of peoples’ movement started building up,
parties re-positioned themselves and joined the caravan. This happened
at least thrice since independence: Chandrashekhar’s Padyatra, JP’s
massive mobilization with the slogan  of “Dictatorship vs Democracy”
and V.P.Singh’s crusade against corruption in high places. The point
is not whether the issues that emerged or the trajectory that the
movements took changed politics fundamentally or decisively. The point
is also not whether, and , to what extent, the movements  “succeeded”.
 What is germane here is the dynamics of the political process
involved.

It can be argued that the appearance of a leader with sensitivity,
appeal and credibility was the crucial factor :That crucial link is
now missing, although an issue has emerged, an issue which is
fundamental in nature and far-reaching in its consequences.

What should we be doing? What can we do?
History has many instances when, in the wake of disappearance or
absence of a crucial leader, the second- , third- rung leadership and
the mass of foot-soldiers took the flag and pressed on. The outcome
was not always “success” in the conventional sense. But no one can
read, much less determine in advance, the product of history: All one
can do and hope for is to read the challenge of the time correctly and
throw oneself heart and soul on the side of the “revolutionary”
collocation of forces and against the “reactionary” ones.

That seems to be the only way to recreate and expand the political space.
It is important that such a movement is “radical” and “inclusive” at
the same time. It must be radical in that it must not be misled by the
government double- talk, must not look for palliatives and must
clearly insist on nothing short of the declaration of “a standstill”
by government on the very policies that have engendered the crisis. In
other words, no more land acquisition, no more market appropriation of
land, habitat or forests, no more mining licenses/mous/operations, no
more SEZs. And, no more annihilation of human rights. Once the
movement gathers momentum around this pre-requisite, the space for
worthwhile political intervention may emerge. The agenda for such
intervention will naturally be around the “rollback” of those
policies.

There is no place for resort to violent means in a democratic polity.
What we are facing, however, is not a narrow issue in the instrumental
sense. It is the question of survival of vast masses of citizens that
have already been pushed to the impoverished margins for generations.
The masses who have patiently borne the continued neglect, harassment
and violence of the authorities and their corporate cohorts. The
masses for whom the only image of democratic polity is the systematic
despoliation of their habitats and destruction of their livelihood, on
the one hand, and the unending and colossal corruption and unspeakable
venality of the ruling elite who have co-opted  their own so-called
elected representatives and ministers. The reactive violence on the
part of Adivasis needs to be seen in terms of the existential
political and social context, not in terms of a reductionist  theory
of the state’s monopoly of use of force.

Equally, the stereotype response of calling for rapid “development” of
the tribal areas must not be allowed to dilute or divert the focus on
the main issue, the main crisis. Development , as it is understood and
practised by the ruling classes  is only the development of
infrastructure to facilitate and expedite the looting of forest and
mineral wealth,  and the inevitable ruination of the life and
livelihood of the inhabitants. First condition of any meaningful
development at present is ensuring the survival  and elimination of
future threats to survival.

To be “inclusive” the movement must be an open platform for all those
individuals, organizations and  political parties who accept the
foregoing analysis and approach. Particular care must be taken not to
allow the platform of the movement to degenerate into a partisan forum
for bashing the Left .Nor should it permit infiltration by the Janus
–faced and fork-tongued self- appointed sympathizers of “vanvasis”.

How do we go about it?
Here are some suggestions:

(i) A meeting should be convened of the core group in Delhi(
preferably while the parliament  winter session is on) followed by a
press conference in which the  rationale, the objective  and  the
programme of the political initiative be announced.

(ii)The programme should consist of holding meetings in all
metropolitan cities and other major state capitals where the core
group, at least some of them, should be present. The sequence of
meetings should be so planned as to create a sustained impetus for a
movement. The trigger provided by the meetings should generate state
level chain of meetings. In the course of time, depending on the
response, a nationwide network and movement should emerge.

(iii)The expenses of fare should be borne by core group members
themselves. The stay at the meeting places should be organized by the
members themselves or, if necessary, with the help of  the local
friends and well –wishers.

(iv)A hall or suitable place for the meeting also could be arranged by
local friends and supporters by raising ad-hoc resources. Initially,
the core group members could create a pool of financial resources by
personal contributions.

(v)The local press should be mobilized in advance for all the meetings planned.