Mamata Bannerji to Mahashweta Devi, Aparna Sen or Medha Patkar; Digvijay Singh, Mani Shankar Aiyyar to Himanshu Roy, Binayak Sen and so many other political leaders and activists or civil society personalities have been indiscriminately and without any understanding of ground level situation putting forth an argument which has given intellectual legitimacy to the Maoists and their policy of annihilation. In fact a professor named Sai Baba from Jawaharlal Nehru University has gone to the extent of saying that `Maoism is not a national problem, it is a solution to the problem of exploitation in India'.
The wages of sin of these people have resulted in a gruesome tragedy in the eraly hours of Saturday, May 29, 2010 which has claimed 141 (till Sunday, 30th May 2010) innocent lives so far. Do these people realise that the blood of 141 innocent passengers of Mumbai bound Jnaneswari Express is on their hands? Of course not. They are still parroting the same argument that `whatever happened was wrong and should be condemned, but the exploitation is the root cause and that should be first addressed, Moism should not be tackled with use of force.' This root cause debate is a complete hogwash. Nobody denies that there is extreme poverty, deprivation, exploitation in many areas of India. But people across India have not raised the banner of revolt and taken recourse to arms. Most of the people who are deprived and exploited, still believe in democratic process and they have confidence that this process is the only way for them to progress. They believe that their vote makes the difference. So far 15 general elections have been held in India and no section of population has bycotted them. Most Indians do not support the armed uprising. In fact most of the Adivasis are not supporters of Maoists. If this had been so, in all the elections they would have heeded the call of the Maoists to bycot the polls. This has never happened in last 60 years. Many times Maoists had to use violence to stop Adivasis from voting. A myth has been created to project Maoists as saviours of Adivasis.
It must also be realised that in a Democracy the STATE has the monoploy of violence. The STATE has to use this violence within the framework of rules and regulation. If the STATE oversteps this framework than it can be hauled before the Judiciary. If any body takes up arms then STATE has to take action against him. This is a constitutional responsibility of the STATE. So the argumet that `first violence by the STATE must stop and than we can ask Maoists to abjure violence.' is spacious. If the STATE indulges in violence than there is a remedy of taking recourse to judicial mesures. On the other hand, three is no recourse to anything for the violent acts of Maoists.
Similarly, the argument that Maoists are justified in attacking police and security forces, but they must not indulge in violent acts that takes the lives of civilians is also against the spirit of Democracy. The police or security forces are legal arms of the STATE. The policemen bear arms and wear uniforms on behalf of the STATE. So if any body targets them, then the STATE is constitutionally bound to retaliate and use whatever legal means available at its disposal.
On this background the `Development Debate' and the direct or indirect support from section of intellectual elite in the civil society and some in the political establishment has resulted in an inchoherent thinking in the ruling class, with a result that there is total lack of well thought out coordinated strategy to deal with this menace of Maoism..
It is now high time to call a spade a spade.
The first and foremost is to realise that Maoist do not have any real empathy for the Adivasis. They are using Adivasis to further their real aim—which is to capture State Power. In their view the democratic set up which India established in 1947 is being controlled by camprador-bourgeois and they want to set up a real `people's democracy'. To achieve this objective they are waging a WAR.
So why should we talk to Maoists? They are waging a WAR against India. They are enemies of Indian Democracy. In a WAR you elimenate and defeat the enemy. The war has to fought by the STATE and not by private militias like Salva Judun or Marxist cadres. If the STATE does no act and depends on private militias, then it looses legitimacy. This is what is happening in Chattisgarh and West Bengal. The decision of the Government not to run trains during night in Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal is also an abdication of responsibility. This decision means that government is not ready to act. This is a signal to the enemy—the Maoists—that there is general panic in ruling establishment. It is essential to deploy whatever forces that are required—be it para military forces or even Army---to check the advance of Maoists and defeat them. This is the first essential step. Along with this step a nationwide political campaign needs to be launched y generally against left and right wing adventurism and perticularly against Maoists. We must also defeat them ideologically.
...And for that to happen we ourselves have to be firmly rooted in ideology of DEMOCRACY. We need to be DEMOCRATIC FUNDAMENTALIST in real sense of the term. Whatever may be the inadequacies and ills of the present Democratic set up in India, this is the only way by which a continental size country like India can be governed. We need to keep on emphasizing this fact.
Of course many ills and inadequacies are urgently required to be removed from our Democratic set up. But that is a separate debate and it should not be allowed to come in the way of the fight against Maoists.
No comments:
Post a Comment