Some uncomfortable thoughts on 'urban naxals'
NB: India's rulers have invented several bits of political abuse over the years, including tukde-tukde gang, and urban Naxals. Some years ago during the wave of violent 'actions' undertaken by the CPI (Maoist) I was often asked to join TV programs debating the issue. I was invited because having been a Naxalite cadre myself in the first phase of the movement during 1969-1972; I had sharply criticised Maoist violence. I am still of the view that Maoists should give up violence. I wrote the following piece for The Hindustan Times) in 2009. I found it necessary to point out that there was much in common between Naxalism (the name for Indian Maoism) and the extremist doctrines of the Sangh Parivar.
I re-post that article here, as our Prime Minister has chosen to use the phrase 'Urban Naxal' to attack the Congress Party. The Congress ruled West Bengal during the first years of the Naxalite movement and the Chief Minister-ship of S.S. Ray saw the most brutal police action against Naxalism. The Army action in East Pakistan under Mrs Indira Gandhi's leadership, also known as the Bangladesh Liberation War, also saw anti-Naxal action. So it is indeed ironic that none other than India's Prime Minister should refer to the Congress as in the grip of Naxalism. But we live in a post-truth world, so it matters little what anyone says, especially persons in high office. Readers are invited to browse through this old article, as well as some of the links provided below it.
The deep link between these two currents of extremism is the unutterable truth of Indian history. Hindutva is the Maoism of the elite. DS
There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic: Albert Camus
Spokesmen of Maoist
extremism have recently expressed regret for beheading a police officer and
explained their actions as a defence of the oppressed. Their comrades’
brutality, they say, is an aberration. They cite of state violence to
justify actions they claim are undertaken in self-defence. There is more
to this than meets the eye. Maoist theory holds that India is a semi-colonial
polity with a bogus constitution that must be overthrown by armed force. The
comrades view all their actions as part of a revolutionary war. Their
foundational documents declare armed struggle to be “the highest and main form
of struggle” and the “people’s army” its main organisation. In war, morality is
suspended and limits cast aside. War also results in something the Pentagon
calls “collateral damage”. Is it true that Naxalite brutality is only an
aberration?
On August 15, 2004, the Maoists killed nine persons in Andhra Pradesh, including a legislator, a driver and a municipal worker. On August 14, 2005, Saleema, 52, a cook in a mid-day kitchen in Karimnagar was beaten to death by Maoists for being a “police informer.” This was the second woman killed by them in a fortnight. A former Naxalite, Bhukya Padma, 18, was hacked to death in Marimadla village on July 30. On September 12, 2005, they slit the throats of 17 villagers in Belwadari village in Giridih. Landmine blasts in February 2006 killed 26 tribals and injured 50 in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The victims were returning from religious festivals, and some from anti-Naxalite rallies. Another blast on March 25 killed 13 persons.
Some of these killings may be incorrectly reported, some carried out by local cadre on their own. But the comrades clearly believe in political assassination. Moreover, the decisions to kill are taken in a shadowy realm wherein the fault of the victim is decided by whim. Truth and falsehood are dispensed with because the Party Is Always Right. Their targets have no chance of appealing for mercy, and no one will be punished for collateral damage. And all this is justified because the Maoists are at war — a circular argument, because whether or not we are at war is another whim.
But there is an elephant in India’s drawing room. Maoists openly defy the Constitution, which they say is a mask for a brutal order. Are not our mainstream parties equally contemptuous of the law? Why did the NDA regime try and do away with Schedule 5 of the Constitution that protects tribal lands from encroachment? Why is it still being violated? Is there not prima-facie evidence of politicians’ involvement in massacres in Delhi and Gujarat in 1984 and 2002? Why haven’t they been brought to justice? In 1987, 40 Muslims of Meerut were killed in custody. Why did the case take 18 years to come to court?
The BJP and the
Congress both supported the private army named Salwa Judum with disastrous
consequences for Chhattisgarh’s population. Even the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court criticised the States’ recklessness. In 2007 the West Bengal
government despatched an illegal armed force to crush its opponents in
Nandigram. India’s rulers regularly protect criminals, and part of the public
is complicit in this. Policemen in dereliction of duty get promoted. Mass
murderers are hailed as heroes. Why are we addicted to double-standards?
Those who believe in
virtuous murder are today calling upon the democratic conscience. Does
democracy include the right to kill? Our left-extremists have changed the world
for the worse. Along with right-wing radicals, they ground their arguments on
passionate rhetoric and a claim to superior knowledge. Fighters for justice
have become judge and executioner rolled into one — in a word, pure tyrants.
Every killing launches yet another cycle of trauma and revenge. Will Francis
Induvar’s son ever dream of becoming a socialist? Should not socialists hold
themselves to a higher standard than the system they oppose?
Symbolism counts for a
lot in Indian politics. If the Maoist party is interested in negotiations, I
suggest a demand that will expose the hypocritical nature of our polity: ask
the government to remove the portrait of VD Savarkar from the Central Hall
of Parliament, placed there in 2003. If it cannot do that, ask it to place
Charu Mazumdar’s portrait alongside. Why not? Both were extreme patriots. Both
believed in political assassination, both hated Gandhi and both insisted that
the end justifies the means.
My suggestion will
meet with indignation. But the deep link between these two currents of extremism
is the unutterable truth of Indian history. Hindutva is the Maoism of the
elite. In 1969, an ultra-leftist Hindi writer penned a diatribe titled Gandhi
Benakaab that praised Godse as a true son of India. In 42 years of
activity, Naxalites hardly ever confronted the communalists; although to be
fair, one ultra-left group in Punjab did combat the Khalistanis. The
assassination of a VHP Swami in Kandhamal in August 2008 is the only example.
The Maoists owned the crime, but the Sangh parivar vented its wrath upon
Christian villagers. Thousands were displaced and over 30 were killed. The
comrades were unwilling or unable to prevent the carnage.
Savarkar’s acolyte
Nathuram Godse murdered Mahatma Gandhi. In
1969, the Justice Kapur Commission concluded that the conspiracy was hatched by
Savarkar and his group. Sardar Patel said as much to Nehru in February
1948. If Savarkar deserves to be honoured by the Nation, so does Charu. Since
the government is unlikely to accept either option, we may finally come to
a debate about why one kind of political murder is anti-national, while the
other is patriotic virtue.
https://dilipsimeon.blogspot.com/2012/11/hindutva-is-maoism-of-elite.html
Naxalites should lay down their arms and
challenge the ruling class to abide by the Constitution
ASHUTOSH
BHARDWAJ: Latest war cries against Naxals are absurd. Go visit Bastar, a war is
already on
Gandhians
shocked at government move to take over Sabarmati Ashram
The Supreme Court, Gandhi and the RSS
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
A pre-history of post-truth, East and West. By MARCI SHORE
K.Balagopal:
Political violence & human rights: Naxalism in A.P.
Maoism and the philosophy of insurrection
Dilip Simeon: Closing the Circle: On Revolution (Frontier, 2012)
Jairus Banaji: Fascism, Maoism and the Democratic Left
An
Open Letter to the world on the Bangladesh crisis of 1971
Jairus Banaji on the Indian corporate strategy of subordinating farm households and family labor
More posts on Naxalism
