Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
India Creating Ring of Fire in South Asia
- Thread starter BanglaBhoot
- Start date
alamgir
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
India must apologize to SAARC for exporting terrorism and destabilizing the regionWed, 2007-04-04 14:18
H. L. D. Mahindapala
Predictably, the SARC summit opened with its focus on terrorism. Predictably, the smaller nations plagued by terrorism, have, for obvious diplomatic reasons, skirted round the issue of identifying the chief manufacturer and exporter of terrorism in the SAARC region India. She is also primarily responsible for the economic and political stagnation of the SAARC region. Indias overt hegemonism and covert terrorism, both of which are linked to separatist movements outside its borders, have delayed the integration of its neighboring countries into a viable unit that could race ahead to achieve results comparable to that of other regional blocs.
Despite the repetitious platitudes it proffers from time to time of historical and friendly relations India has failed to live up to either the historical or the friendly relations needed to make SAARC a regional power. India cannot give the lead due from a benign force because it is mired in its own morass of political hypocrisy and narrow self-interests. Indias meddlesome regional politics has played a central role in retarding progress not only in stabilizing the region but also in alleviating poverty.
The Nehruvian non-aligned policies declared so pompously at Bandung, or its latest manifestation in the Gujral doctrine is as good as principles written on water. For instance, the "Gujral Doctrine", states: first, with its neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity, but gives and accommodates what it can in good faith and trust.
Second, we believe that no South Asian country should allow its territory to be used against the interests of another country of the region. Third, that none should interfere in the internal affairs of another. Fourth, all South Asian countries must respect each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty. And finally, they should settle all their disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations.
India has violated practically every one of these tenets. And from the Himalayan heights in Nepal right down to tip end of Sri Lanka the common cry is against Indian expansionism, Indian imperialism, and Indian interventions. India survives in the region not because of its diplomacy or adherence to Gandhi-Nehruvian principles but through the sheer weight of its size. This has posed a serious question for the neighboring nations: can they achieve their goals within a SAARC dominated by India?
This region, which consists of one-fifth of the worlds population, will continue to lag behind the rest of the world if India continues to pursue its politics of destabilizing the neighborhood for its short term benefit. In the long term it is going blowback and drag India down, inhibiting its own growth. India must decide now whether it wants to grow together or at expense of its neighbors. If it is the latter India will have to pay for it dearly in the years ahead.
It doesnt need much for India to correct its path. All what India needs is to follow the path it recommends to others, particularly its neighbors. To begin with, India must put an end to its two main exports: 1) hegemonism and 2) terrorism. India accuses Pakistan of encouraging and exporting terrorism to Kashmir. But the Indian Prime Minister has no qualms in serving tea and sympathy to Tamil MPs who are the avowed proxies of Tamil Tigers. What would Indian punditry have to say if the Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz invites the Naxalites for chai tea in Islamabad?
India cannot pretend forever that it is the source of all goodness and that all evil comes from its disobedient neighbors. Historical facts reveal that the smaller neighbors would have been better off without India. Sri Lanka, for instance, wouldnt have had to face the current problem of Tamil Tiger terrorists if Indira Gandhi did not mother the Tamil terrorists in her bosom and exported them to Sri Lanka. India was also caught red-handed in providing sub-standard radar equipment to Sri Lanka which has enabled the Tiger light aircraft to penetrate the air defenses and bomb the key air base at the Katunayake airport.
Then in 1989 India rushed its gun-boats to Maldives by engineering a Tamil rebel group to invade Maldives. India enacted this drama in the Indian Ocean in the name of stabilizing the region. But the whole episode was manipulated by the Indians to signal that the Indian Ocean belongs to her. It was an act of arrogant posturing in the Indian Ocean at the expense of a tiny nation that could hardly harm a sprat.
One of the obnoxious habits of the arrogant India is to flex its muscles to stamp its questionable authority on the region. This is a sign of Indian weakness than a show of its strength. Despite its size India needs the smaller countries more than the smaller neighbors needing India. President Ranasinghe Premadasa proved this when India tried to sabotage the SAARC summit held in Colombo. India, at the last minute decided to boycott the summit to teach President Premadasa a lesson because he was refusing to toe the Indian line. When India decided to boycott the summit Pesident Premadasa immediately got on the phone to the heads of other SAARC countries and organized a summit without India. Then India realized its folly and came down to earth. In the end. It was Premadasa who taught India a lesson. He proved that the small neighbors can function without India though India cannot function without the smaller nations.
The reality is that though the neighbors get along fine with each other India behaves like a crotchety old woman meddling in the affairs of the family and neighbors. Before Afghanistan joined SAARC all problems of the region were linked to India. And those problems still remain unresolved. Bangladesh has its problems with India over disputed maritime borders and the waters of the Ganges. Nepalese are worried about Indian arm-twisting. India is also leaning heavily Bhutan to keep the northern Himalayan border within its sphere of influence. The Indo-Pakistan wrangle over Kashmir has been a perennial problem which is one of the main reasons for the stagnation of SAARC.
There are, of course, accusations against Pakistan too for exporting terrorism. Without providing excuses for such action it can be argued that Pakistan is not into terrorism for hegemonic reasons. India is guilty of pursuing terrorism, or turning a blind eye to it, with the ulterior motives of destabilizing the region -- a deliberate tactic adopted to force each small nation to be dependent on India. This reprehensible conduct of India had caused havoc in the region and it is not inappropriate for India to apologize for violating its own lofty principles and leaving its small neighbors in the current predicament.
If India hopes to play a bigger role in the international theatre and if India hopes to get a seat in the Security Council as a responsible member of the international community caring for global peace and security then it has no moral right to play the duplicitous role of pinching the baby and rocking the cradle. If India continues to play this role the option left for the other regional nations is to work together to isolate India and look farther east towards China for a more constructive leadership.
Incidentally, India is now engaged in tying up with the Western powers, ranging from America, Japan, Australia etc., to build a defensive great wall against China. A raft of new treaties has been signed in recent months, with more to come, to contain China. Of course, there are loud protests from the Western-Indian bloc denying that the new treaties are to contain China. It is most unlikely that China is unaware of this growing trend. These new treaties, giving India a dominant role in Asia, will give more leeway for India to ride rough shod over its neighbors. If India is willing to play foul with its neighbors, big and small, there is no reason why the neighbors, big and small, should protect India.
The unfolding trends are ominous. One way out for SAARC members is to reconfigure their geo-political strategies and strike out in new directions because India is not likely to change its directions. Indian hegemonism will continue to plague the region because it believes that its place as the overlord of the Indian Ocean is secure with the new Western alliances. But the small nations have the power collectively to tie up India like the way the Lilliputians tied down Gulliver. Of course, those familiar with Gullivers Travels will not forget how Gulliver, the giant in the land of pygmies, put out the fire in the Queens house: he just opened his fly and eased his bladder.
The Lillputian neighbors, however, are sick of the smell of Indian urine. The Indians may enjoy the urine of even the cow and may find some medicinal properties in it as one Indian Prime Minister did. But the SAARC must consider, sooner or later, ways to put an end to Indian hegemony covered in pompous piety. They must decide whether they will drown in a deluge flowing from a Gullverian bladder or jointly plot and plan to tie down the Gulliver. Indian bladder politics, if it goes on, will degrade small nations that believe in preserving their dignity and self-respect.
The bottom line is that if the Indian Gulliver thinks that it can douse the fires in the neighborhood by releasing its bladder the small neighbors will have to look for another Bigger Brother other than India.
- Asian Tribune -
www.asiantribune.com
H. L. D. Mahindapala
Predictably, the SARC summit opened with its focus on terrorism. Predictably, the smaller nations plagued by terrorism, have, for obvious diplomatic reasons, skirted round the issue of identifying the chief manufacturer and exporter of terrorism in the SAARC region India. She is also primarily responsible for the economic and political stagnation of the SAARC region. Indias overt hegemonism and covert terrorism, both of which are linked to separatist movements outside its borders, have delayed the integration of its neighboring countries into a viable unit that could race ahead to achieve results comparable to that of other regional blocs.
Despite the repetitious platitudes it proffers from time to time of historical and friendly relations India has failed to live up to either the historical or the friendly relations needed to make SAARC a regional power. India cannot give the lead due from a benign force because it is mired in its own morass of political hypocrisy and narrow self-interests. Indias meddlesome regional politics has played a central role in retarding progress not only in stabilizing the region but also in alleviating poverty.
The Nehruvian non-aligned policies declared so pompously at Bandung, or its latest manifestation in the Gujral doctrine is as good as principles written on water. For instance, the "Gujral Doctrine", states: first, with its neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity, but gives and accommodates what it can in good faith and trust.
Second, we believe that no South Asian country should allow its territory to be used against the interests of another country of the region. Third, that none should interfere in the internal affairs of another. Fourth, all South Asian countries must respect each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty. And finally, they should settle all their disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations.
India has violated practically every one of these tenets. And from the Himalayan heights in Nepal right down to tip end of Sri Lanka the common cry is against Indian expansionism, Indian imperialism, and Indian interventions. India survives in the region not because of its diplomacy or adherence to Gandhi-Nehruvian principles but through the sheer weight of its size. This has posed a serious question for the neighboring nations: can they achieve their goals within a SAARC dominated by India?
This region, which consists of one-fifth of the worlds population, will continue to lag behind the rest of the world if India continues to pursue its politics of destabilizing the neighborhood for its short term benefit. In the long term it is going blowback and drag India down, inhibiting its own growth. India must decide now whether it wants to grow together or at expense of its neighbors. If it is the latter India will have to pay for it dearly in the years ahead.
It doesnt need much for India to correct its path. All what India needs is to follow the path it recommends to others, particularly its neighbors. To begin with, India must put an end to its two main exports: 1) hegemonism and 2) terrorism. India accuses Pakistan of encouraging and exporting terrorism to Kashmir. But the Indian Prime Minister has no qualms in serving tea and sympathy to Tamil MPs who are the avowed proxies of Tamil Tigers. What would Indian punditry have to say if the Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz invites the Naxalites for chai tea in Islamabad?
India cannot pretend forever that it is the source of all goodness and that all evil comes from its disobedient neighbors. Historical facts reveal that the smaller neighbors would have been better off without India. Sri Lanka, for instance, wouldnt have had to face the current problem of Tamil Tiger terrorists if Indira Gandhi did not mother the Tamil terrorists in her bosom and exported them to Sri Lanka. India was also caught red-handed in providing sub-standard radar equipment to Sri Lanka which has enabled the Tiger light aircraft to penetrate the air defenses and bomb the key air base at the Katunayake airport.
Then in 1989 India rushed its gun-boats to Maldives by engineering a Tamil rebel group to invade Maldives. India enacted this drama in the Indian Ocean in the name of stabilizing the region. But the whole episode was manipulated by the Indians to signal that the Indian Ocean belongs to her. It was an act of arrogant posturing in the Indian Ocean at the expense of a tiny nation that could hardly harm a sprat.
One of the obnoxious habits of the arrogant India is to flex its muscles to stamp its questionable authority on the region. This is a sign of Indian weakness than a show of its strength. Despite its size India needs the smaller countries more than the smaller neighbors needing India. President Ranasinghe Premadasa proved this when India tried to sabotage the SAARC summit held in Colombo. India, at the last minute decided to boycott the summit to teach President Premadasa a lesson because he was refusing to toe the Indian line. When India decided to boycott the summit Pesident Premadasa immediately got on the phone to the heads of other SAARC countries and organized a summit without India. Then India realized its folly and came down to earth. In the end. It was Premadasa who taught India a lesson. He proved that the small neighbors can function without India though India cannot function without the smaller nations.
The reality is that though the neighbors get along fine with each other India behaves like a crotchety old woman meddling in the affairs of the family and neighbors. Before Afghanistan joined SAARC all problems of the region were linked to India. And those problems still remain unresolved. Bangladesh has its problems with India over disputed maritime borders and the waters of the Ganges. Nepalese are worried about Indian arm-twisting. India is also leaning heavily Bhutan to keep the northern Himalayan border within its sphere of influence. The Indo-Pakistan wrangle over Kashmir has been a perennial problem which is one of the main reasons for the stagnation of SAARC.
There are, of course, accusations against Pakistan too for exporting terrorism. Without providing excuses for such action it can be argued that Pakistan is not into terrorism for hegemonic reasons. India is guilty of pursuing terrorism, or turning a blind eye to it, with the ulterior motives of destabilizing the region -- a deliberate tactic adopted to force each small nation to be dependent on India. This reprehensible conduct of India had caused havoc in the region and it is not inappropriate for India to apologize for violating its own lofty principles and leaving its small neighbors in the current predicament.
If India hopes to play a bigger role in the international theatre and if India hopes to get a seat in the Security Council as a responsible member of the international community caring for global peace and security then it has no moral right to play the duplicitous role of pinching the baby and rocking the cradle. If India continues to play this role the option left for the other regional nations is to work together to isolate India and look farther east towards China for a more constructive leadership.
Incidentally, India is now engaged in tying up with the Western powers, ranging from America, Japan, Australia etc., to build a defensive great wall against China. A raft of new treaties has been signed in recent months, with more to come, to contain China. Of course, there are loud protests from the Western-Indian bloc denying that the new treaties are to contain China. It is most unlikely that China is unaware of this growing trend. These new treaties, giving India a dominant role in Asia, will give more leeway for India to ride rough shod over its neighbors. If India is willing to play foul with its neighbors, big and small, there is no reason why the neighbors, big and small, should protect India.
The unfolding trends are ominous. One way out for SAARC members is to reconfigure their geo-political strategies and strike out in new directions because India is not likely to change its directions. Indian hegemonism will continue to plague the region because it believes that its place as the overlord of the Indian Ocean is secure with the new Western alliances. But the small nations have the power collectively to tie up India like the way the Lilliputians tied down Gulliver. Of course, those familiar with Gullivers Travels will not forget how Gulliver, the giant in the land of pygmies, put out the fire in the Queens house: he just opened his fly and eased his bladder.
The Lillputian neighbors, however, are sick of the smell of Indian urine. The Indians may enjoy the urine of even the cow and may find some medicinal properties in it as one Indian Prime Minister did. But the SAARC must consider, sooner or later, ways to put an end to Indian hegemony covered in pompous piety. They must decide whether they will drown in a deluge flowing from a Gullverian bladder or jointly plot and plan to tie down the Gulliver. Indian bladder politics, if it goes on, will degrade small nations that believe in preserving their dignity and self-respect.
The bottom line is that if the Indian Gulliver thinks that it can douse the fires in the neighborhood by releasing its bladder the small neighbors will have to look for another Bigger Brother other than India.
- Asian Tribune -
www.asiantribune.com
alamgir
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
SRI LANKAN OPPOSITION PARTY ALLEGES INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT OF MANMOHAN SINGH
By Walter Jayawardhana
Sri Lankas second largest opposition party the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in a statement issued by the partys political bureau has attacked the island nations big neighbor India for stating Sri Lanka should only buy weapons from India and weapons of Indias choice to combat Tamil insurgency calling it interference in the countrys internal affairs.
Indias National Security Advisor M. K. Narayan recently said Sri Lanka should not buy weapons from countries such as Pakistan and China only limiting its purchases exclusively from India and that also limited to defensive weapons.
Mr. Narayanan headed the Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) from 1987 to 1990. This was a time when after secretly arming, training and sending to Sri Lanka all the Tamil separatist groups in an indirect invasion, India forced Sri Lanka to sign with Indian gunboats outside Colombo harbor an unequal treaty, the so-called Indian Accord. said the party leader Somawansa Amerasinghe in a letter handed over to the Indian Ambassador (High Commissioner ) in Colombo
Indias coalition government headed by Manmohan Singh is heavily dependent on the support of the DMK party led by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi, whose sympathies lie with the terrorists of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The main supply of weapons of the terrorist group is also from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, whose police chief said recently that the LTTE killed some Tamil Nadu fishermen and also kidnapped some others. Karunanidhis daughter Kanimozhi who is about to be entering the Upper House of Indian parliament called Rajya Sabha is alleged to be under contract to the LTTE to peddle influence for the terrorist group.
The follwing is the full text of the letter handed over by the JVP to the Indian ambassador:
Mr. M.K. Narayanan, the Indian National Security Advisor has said We [India] are a big power in the region. We dont want the Sri Lankan government to go to Pakistan or China for weapons. Whatever may be their requirements, they should come to us.
Mr. Narayanan headed the Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) from 1987 to 1990. This was a time when after secretly arming, training and sending to Sri Lanka all the Tamil separatist groups in an indirect invasion, India forced Sri Lanka to sign with Indian gunboats outside Colombo harbor an unequal treaty, the so-called Indian Accord. Mr. Narayanan undoubtedly participated in formulating and implementing all these anti Sri Lankan acts by the then Indian government. This was also the time when the Indian Air Force intruded into Sri Lankan air space to drop self-styled "food parcels" on Vadamarachchi at a time when the Sri Lankan government was about to defeat the LTTE in Jaffna peninsula.
This behavior of India to Sri Lanka was a strong contrast to the behavior of many other countries in the region notably Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Thailand, Iran and Malaysia who have never interfered in our internal politics. These policies of India have been just the opposite of correct relationships that were mooted by India herself together with other ex-colonial countries under the Panchasheela principles of noninterference in other countries.
It is also no secret that in spite of India claiming to change her policies towards Sri Lanka she had been very reluctant to help us. When the LTTE was to overrun Jaffna peninsula a few years ago, India refused all our requests for help for sea transport. It is also no secret that when China was to give us under very favorable terms a 3D radar system, India interfered and dissuaded us from getting that.
The JVPs internal policies are for democracy and full equality of all citizens. To reach this goal requires the elimination of the racist and totalitarian LTTE structure. Recently, our MPs have been increasingly interacting with Indian political parties especially of the left who have understood our principled position. A few weeks ago our delegates were well received in Tamil Nadu.
The foreign policy of the JVP is very simple. It will side with any country, whatever their other ideological views, which support Sri Lanka to regain full sovereignty. The only country to have intruded on our sovereignty in the postcolonial period is India.
The JVP over the recent years have thought that India's bad neighbor policy had been changed. Hence the JVP began to think of India in very positive terms. But the recent statement of Mr. Narayanan, one-time head of Indian spy agencies, gives us to doubt that. As a sovereign nation Sri Lanka has the full right to trade with any nation including from where we should buy the best arms.
India and Sri Lanka share a common heritage in many areas of culture. The JVP will always foster correct and amicable relations between our two countries but at the same time it will not shirk from its responsibility of standing for the full integrity and sovereignty of the country.
www.lankaweb.com
By Walter Jayawardhana
Sri Lankas second largest opposition party the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in a statement issued by the partys political bureau has attacked the island nations big neighbor India for stating Sri Lanka should only buy weapons from India and weapons of Indias choice to combat Tamil insurgency calling it interference in the countrys internal affairs.
Indias National Security Advisor M. K. Narayan recently said Sri Lanka should not buy weapons from countries such as Pakistan and China only limiting its purchases exclusively from India and that also limited to defensive weapons.
Mr. Narayanan headed the Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) from 1987 to 1990. This was a time when after secretly arming, training and sending to Sri Lanka all the Tamil separatist groups in an indirect invasion, India forced Sri Lanka to sign with Indian gunboats outside Colombo harbor an unequal treaty, the so-called Indian Accord. said the party leader Somawansa Amerasinghe in a letter handed over to the Indian Ambassador (High Commissioner ) in Colombo
Indias coalition government headed by Manmohan Singh is heavily dependent on the support of the DMK party led by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi, whose sympathies lie with the terrorists of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The main supply of weapons of the terrorist group is also from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, whose police chief said recently that the LTTE killed some Tamil Nadu fishermen and also kidnapped some others. Karunanidhis daughter Kanimozhi who is about to be entering the Upper House of Indian parliament called Rajya Sabha is alleged to be under contract to the LTTE to peddle influence for the terrorist group.
The follwing is the full text of the letter handed over by the JVP to the Indian ambassador:
Mr. M.K. Narayanan, the Indian National Security Advisor has said We [India] are a big power in the region. We dont want the Sri Lankan government to go to Pakistan or China for weapons. Whatever may be their requirements, they should come to us.
Mr. Narayanan headed the Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) from 1987 to 1990. This was a time when after secretly arming, training and sending to Sri Lanka all the Tamil separatist groups in an indirect invasion, India forced Sri Lanka to sign with Indian gunboats outside Colombo harbor an unequal treaty, the so-called Indian Accord. Mr. Narayanan undoubtedly participated in formulating and implementing all these anti Sri Lankan acts by the then Indian government. This was also the time when the Indian Air Force intruded into Sri Lankan air space to drop self-styled "food parcels" on Vadamarachchi at a time when the Sri Lankan government was about to defeat the LTTE in Jaffna peninsula.
This behavior of India to Sri Lanka was a strong contrast to the behavior of many other countries in the region notably Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Thailand, Iran and Malaysia who have never interfered in our internal politics. These policies of India have been just the opposite of correct relationships that were mooted by India herself together with other ex-colonial countries under the Panchasheela principles of noninterference in other countries.
It is also no secret that in spite of India claiming to change her policies towards Sri Lanka she had been very reluctant to help us. When the LTTE was to overrun Jaffna peninsula a few years ago, India refused all our requests for help for sea transport. It is also no secret that when China was to give us under very favorable terms a 3D radar system, India interfered and dissuaded us from getting that.
The JVPs internal policies are for democracy and full equality of all citizens. To reach this goal requires the elimination of the racist and totalitarian LTTE structure. Recently, our MPs have been increasingly interacting with Indian political parties especially of the left who have understood our principled position. A few weeks ago our delegates were well received in Tamil Nadu.
The foreign policy of the JVP is very simple. It will side with any country, whatever their other ideological views, which support Sri Lanka to regain full sovereignty. The only country to have intruded on our sovereignty in the postcolonial period is India.
The JVP over the recent years have thought that India's bad neighbor policy had been changed. Hence the JVP began to think of India in very positive terms. But the recent statement of Mr. Narayanan, one-time head of Indian spy agencies, gives us to doubt that. As a sovereign nation Sri Lanka has the full right to trade with any nation including from where we should buy the best arms.
India and Sri Lanka share a common heritage in many areas of culture. The JVP will always foster correct and amicable relations between our two countries but at the same time it will not shirk from its responsibility of standing for the full integrity and sovereignty of the country.
www.lankaweb.com
salman nedian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 0
Nice Articles!
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Awareness if the first step too revolt ..... just a matter of time before India consumes itself.
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Bother to explain more.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
I wonder, countries that dont stand up an inch to India when it comes to economy, resources, among many other things wont 'consume' themselves, but India would !!
I think You forgot to add an 'Inshallah' there Munshi !!
I think You forgot to add an 'Inshallah' there Munshi !!
alamgir
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
On Indias Growing Violence: Its Outright War and Both Sides are Choosing Their Weapons
by Arundhati Roy
The following is an interview with Arundhati Roy, conducted by Shoma Chaudhury of Tehelka.
There is an atmosphere of growing violence across the country. How do you read the signs? In what context should it be read?
You dont have to be a genius to read the signs. We have a growing middle class, reared on a diet of radical consumerism and aggressive greed. Unlike industrializing Western countries, which had colonies from which to plunder resources and generate slave labor to feed this process, we have to colonize ourselves, our own nether parts. Weve begun to eat our own limbs. The greed that is being generated (and marketed as a value interchangeable with nationalism) can only be sated by grabbing land, water and resources from the vulnerable. What were witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. Its a vertical secession, not a lateral one. Theyre fighting for the right to merge with the worlds elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere. Theyve managed to commandeer the resources, the coal, the minerals, the bauxite, the water and electricity. Now they want the land to make more cars, more bombs, more mines supertoys for the new supercitizens of the new superpower. So its outright war, and people on both sides are choosing their weapons. The government and the corporations reach for structural adjustment, the World Bank, the ADB, FDI, friendly court orders, friendly policy makers, help from the friendly corporate media and a police force that will ram all this down peoples throats. Those who want to resist this process have, until now, reached for dharnas, hunger strikes, satyagraha, the courts and what they thought was friendly media. But now more and more are reaching for guns. Will the violence grow? If the growth rate and the Sensex are going to be the only barometers the government uses to measure progress and the well-being of people, then of course it will. How do I read the signs? It isnt hard to read sky-writing. What it says up there, in big letters, is this: the **** has hit the fan, folks.
You once remarked that though you may not resort to violence yourself, you think it has become immoral to condemn it, given the circumstances in the country. Can you elaborate on this view?
Id be a liability as a guerrilla! I doubt I used the word immoral morality is an elusive business, as changeable as the weather. What I feel is this: non-violent movements have knocked at the door of every democratic institution in this country for decades, and have been spurned and humiliated. Look at the Bhopal gas victims, the Narmada Bachao Andolan. The nba had a lot going for it high-profile leadership, media coverage, more resources than any other mass movement. What went wrong? People are bound to want to rethink strategy. When Sonia Gandhi begins to promote satyagraha at the World Economic Forum in Davos, its time for us to sit up and think. For example, is mass civil disobedience possible within the structure of a democratic nation state? Is it possible in the age of disinformation and corporate-controlled mass media? Are hunger strikes umbilically linked to celebrity politics? Would anybody care if the people of Nangla Machhi or Bhatti mines went on a hunger strike? Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for six years. That should be a lesson to many of us. Ive always felt that its ironic that hunger strikes are used as a political weapon in a land where most people go hungry anyway. We are in a different time and place now. Up against a different, more complex adversary. Weve entered the era of NGOs or should I say the era of paltu shers in which mass action can be a treacherous business. We have demonstrations which are funded, we have sponsored dharnas and social forums which make militant postures but never follow up on what they preach. We have all kinds of virtual resistance. Meetings against SEZs sponsored by the biggest promoters of SEZs. Awards and grants for environmental activism and community action given by corporations responsible for devastating whole ecosystems. Vedanta, a company mining bauxite in the forests of Orissa, wants to start a university. The Tatas have two charitable trusts that directly and indirectly fund activists and mass movements across the country. Could that be why Singur has drawn so much less flak than Nandigram? Of course the Tatas and Birlas funded Gandhi too maybe he was our first NGO. But now we have NGOs who make a lot of noise, write a lot of reports, but whom the sarkar is more than comfortable with. How do we make sense of all this? The place is crawling with professional diffusers of real political action. Virtual resistance has become something of a liability.
There was a time when mass movements looked to the courts for justice. The courts have rained down a series of judgments that are so unjust, so insulting to the poor in the language they use, they take your breath away. A recent Supreme Court judgment, allowing the Vasant Kunj Mall to resume construction though it didnt have the requisite clearances, said in so many words that the questions of corporations indulging in malpractice does not arise! In the ERA of corporate globalization, corporate land-grab, in the ERA of Enron and Monsanto, Halliburton and Bechtel, thats a loaded thing to say. It exposes the ideological heart of the most powerful institution in this country. The judiciary, along with the corporate press, is now seen as the lynchpin of the neo-liberal project.
In a climate like this, when people feel that they are being worn down, exhausted by these interminable democratic processes, only to be eventually humiliated, what are they supposed to do? Of course it isnt as though the only options are binary violence versus non-violence. There are political parties that believe in armed struggle but only as one part of their overall political strategy. Political workers in these struggles have been dealt with brutally, killed, beaten, imprisoned under false charges. People are fully aware that to take to arms is to call down upon yourself the myriad forms of the violence of the Indian State. The minute armed struggle becomes a strategy, your whole world shrinks and the colors fade to black and white. But when people decide to take that step because every other option has ended in despair, should we condemn them? Does anyone believe that if the people of Nandigram had held a dharna and sung songs, the West Bengal government would have backed down? We are living in times when to be ineffective is to support the status quo (which no doubt suits some of us). And being effective comes at a terrible price. I find it hard to condemn people who are prepared to pay that price.
You have been traveling a lot on the ground can you give us a sense of the trouble spots you have been to? Can you outline a few of the combat lines in these places?
Huge question what can I say? The military occupation of Kashmir, neo-fascism in Gujarat, civil war in Chhattisgarh, MNCs raping Orissa, the submergence of hundreds of villages in the Narmada Valley, people living on the edge of absolute starvation, the devastation of forest land, the Bhopal victims living to see the West Bengal government re-wooing Union Carbide now calling itself Dow Chemicals in Nandigram. I havent been recently to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, but we know about the almost hundred thousand farmers who have killed themselves. We know about the fake encounters and the terrible repression in Andhra Pradesh. Each of these places has its own particular history, economy, ecology. None is amenable to easy analysis. And yet there is connecting tissue, there are huge international cultural and economic pressures being brought to bear on them. How can I not mention the Hindutva project, spreading its poison sub-cutaneously, waiting to erupt once again? Id say the biggest indictment of all is that we are still a country, a culture, a society which continues to nurture and practice the notion of untouchability. While our economists number-crunch and boast about the growth rate, a million people human scavengers earn their living carrying several kilos of other peoples **** on their heads every day. And if they didnt carry **** on their heads they would starve to death. Some ******* superpower this.
How does one view the recent State and police violence in Bengal?
No different from police and State violence anywhere else including the issue of hypocrisy and doublespeak so perfected by all political parties including the mainstream Left. Are Communist bullets different from capitalist ones? Odd things are happening. It snowed in Saudi Arabia. Owls are out in broad daylight. The Chinese government tabled a bill sanctioning the right to private property. I dont know if all of this has to do with climate change. The Chinese Communists are turning out to be the biggest capitalists of the 21st century. Why should we expect our own parliamentary Left to be any different? Nandigram and Singur are clear signals. It makes you wonder is the last stop of every revolution advanced capitalism? Think about it the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnam War, the anti-apartheid struggle, the supposedly Gandhian freedom struggle in India whats the last station they all pull in at? Is this the end of imagination?
The Maoist attack in Bijapur the death of 55 policemen. Are the rebels only the flip side of the State?
How can the rebels be the flip side of the State? Would anybody say that those who fought against apartheid however brutal their methods were the flip side of the State? What about those who fought the French in Algeria? Or those who fought the Nazis? Or those who fought colonial regimes? Or those who are fighting the US occupation of Iraq? Are they the flip side of the State? This facile new report-driven human rights discourse, this meaningless condemnation game that we are all forced to play, makes politicians of us all and leaches the real politics out of everything. However pristine we would like to be, however hard we polish our halos, the tragedy is that we have run out of pristine choices. There is a civil war in Chhattisgarh sponsored, created by the Chhattisgarh government, which is publicly pursing the Bush doctrine: if youre not with us, you are with the terrorists. The lynchpin of this war, apart from the formal security forces, is the Salva Judum a government-backed militia of ordinary people forced to take up arms, forced to become SPOs (special police officers). The Indian State has tried this in Kashmir, in Manipur, in Nagaland. Tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands tortured, thousands have disappeared. Any banana republic would be proud of this record. Now the government wants to import these failed strategies into the heartland. Thousands of adivasis have been forcibly moved off their mineral-rich lands into police camps. Hundreds of villages have been forcibly evacuated. Those lands, rich in iron-ore, are being eyed by corporations like the Tatas and Essar. Mous have been signed, but no one knows what they say. Land acquisition has begun. This kind of thing happened in countries like Colombia one of the most devastated countries in the world. While everybodys eyes are fixed on the spiraling violence between government-backed militias and guerrilla squads, multinational corporations quietly make off with the mineral wealth. Thats the little piece of theater being scripted for us in Chhattisgarh.
Of course its horrible that 55 policemen were killed. But theyre as much the victims of government policy as anybody else. For the government and the corporations theyre just cannon fodder theres plenty more where they came from. Crocodile tears will be shed, prim TV anchors will hector us for a while and then more supplies of fodder will be arranged. For the Maoist guerrillas, the police and SPOs they killed were the armed personnel of the Indian State, the main, hands-on perpetrators of repression, torture, custodial killings, false encounters. Theyre not innocent civilians if such a thing exists by any stretch of imagination.
I have no doubt that the Maoists can be agents of terror and coercion too. I have no doubt they have committed unspeakable atrocities. I have no doubt they cannot lay claim to undisputed support from local people but who can? Still, no guerrilla army can survive without local support. Thats a logistical impossibility. And the support for Maoists is growing, not diminishing. That says something. People have no choice but to align themselves on the side of whoever they think is less worse.
But to equate a resistance movement fighting against enormous injustice with the government which enforces that injustice is absurd. The government has slammed the door in the face of every attempt at non-violent resistance. When people take to arms, there is going to be all kinds of violence revolutionary, lumpen and outright criminal. The government is responsible for the monstrous situations it creates.
Naxals, Maoists, outsiders: these are terms being very loosely used these days.
Outsiders is a generic accusation used in the early stages of repression by governments who have begun to believe their own publicity and cant imagine that their own people have risen up against them. Thats the stage the CPM is at now in Bengal, though some would say repression in Bengal is not new, it has only moved into higher gear. In any case, whats an outsider? Who decides the borders? Are they village boundaries? Tehsil? Block? District? State? Is narrow regional and ethnic politics the new Communist mantra? About Naxals and Maoists well India is about to become a police state in which everybody who disagrees with whats going on risks being called a terrorist. Islamic terrorists have to be Islamic so thats not good enough to cover most of us. They need a bigger catchment area. So leaving the definition loose, undefined, is effective strategy, because the time is not far off when well all be called Maoists or Naxalites, terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and shut down by people who dont really know or care who Maoists or Naxalites are. In villages, of course, that has begun thousands of people are being held in jails across the country, loosely charged with being terrorists trying to overthrow the state. Who are the real Naxalites and Maoists? Im not an authority on the subject, but heres a very rudimentary potted history.
The Communist Party of India, the CPI, was formed in 1925. The CPI (M), or what we now call the CPM the Communist Party Marxist split from the CPI in 1964 and formed a separate party. Both, of course, were parliamentary political parties. In 1967, the CPM, along with a splinter group of the Congress, came to power in West Bengal. At the time there was massive unrest among the peasantry starving in the countryside. Local CPM leaders Kanu Sanyal and Charu Mazumdar led a peasant uprising in the district of Naxalbari which is where the term Naxalites comes from. In 1969, the government fell and the Congress came back to power under Siddhartha Shankar Ray. The Naxalite uprising was mercilessly crushed Mahasweta Devi has written powerfully about this time. In 1969, the CPI (ML) Marxist Leninist split from the CPM. A few years later, around 1971, the CPI (ML) devolved into several parties: the CPM-ML (Liberation), largely centered in Bihar; the CPM-ML (New Democracy), functioning for the most part out of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar; the CPM-ML (Class Struggle) mainly in Bengal. These parties have been generically baptised Naxalites. They see themselves as Marxist Leninist, not strictly speaking Maoist. They believe in elections, mass action and when absolutely pushed to the wall or attacked armed struggle. The MCC the Maoist Communist Centre, at the time mostly operating in Bihar was formed in 1968. The PW, Peoples War, operational for the most part in Andhra Pradesh, was formed in 1980. Recently, in 2004, the MCC and the pw merged to form the CPI (Maoist) They believe in outright armed struggle and the overthrowing of the State. They dont participate in elections. This is the party that is fighting the guerrilla war in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.
The Indian State and media largely view the Maoists as an internal security threat. Is this the way to look at them?
Im sure the Maoists would be flattered to be viewed in this way.
The Maoists want to bring down the State. Given the autocratic ideology they take their inspiration from, what alternative would they set up? Wouldnt their regime be an exploitative, autocratic, violent one as well? Isnt their action already exploitative of ordinary people? Do they really have the support of ordinary people?
I think its important for us to acknowledge that both Mao and Stalin are dubious heroes with murderous pasts. Tens of millions of people were killed under their regimes. Apart from what happened in China and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, with the support of the Chinese Communist Party (while the West looked discreetly away), wiped out two million people in Cambodia and brought millions of people to the brink of extinction from disease and starvation. Can we pretend that Chinas cultural revolution didnt happen? Or that millions of people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were not victims of labor camps, torture chambers, the network of spies and informers, the secret police. The history of these regimes is just as dark as the history of Western imperialism, except for the fact that they had a shorter life-span. We cannot condemn the occupation of Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir while we remain silent about Tibet and Chechnya. I would imagine that for the Maoists, the Naxalites, as well as the mainstream Left, being honest about the past is important to strengthen peoples faith in the future. One hopes the past will not be repeated, but denying that it ever happened doesnt help inspire confidence Nevertheless, the Maoists in Nepal have waged a brave and successful struggle against the monarchy. Right now, in India, the Maoists and the various Marxist-Leninist groups are leading the fight against immense injustice here. They are fighting not just the State, but feudal landlords and their armed militias. They are the only people who are making a dent. And I admire that. It may well be that when they come to power, they will, as you say, be brutal, unjust and autocratic, or even worse than the present government. Maybe, but Im not prepared to assume that in advance. If they are, well have to fight them too. And most likely someone like myself will be the first person theyll string up from the nearest tree but right now, it is important to acknowledge that they are bearing the brunt of being at the forefront of resistance. Many of us are in a position where we are beginning to align ourselves on the side of those who we know have no place for us in their religious or ideological imagination. Its true that everybody changes radically when they come to power look at Mandelas ANC. Corrupt, capitalist, bowing to the IMF driving the poor out of their homes honoring Suharto, the killer of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian Communists, with South Africas highest civilian award. Who would have thought it could happen? But does this mean South Africans should have backed away from the struggle against apartheid? Or that they should regret it now? Does it mean Algeria should have remained a French colony, that Kashmiris, Iraqis and Palestinians should accept military occupation? That people whose dignity is being assaulted should give up the fight because they cant find saints to lead them into battle?
www.commondream.org
by Arundhati Roy
The following is an interview with Arundhati Roy, conducted by Shoma Chaudhury of Tehelka.
There is an atmosphere of growing violence across the country. How do you read the signs? In what context should it be read?
You dont have to be a genius to read the signs. We have a growing middle class, reared on a diet of radical consumerism and aggressive greed. Unlike industrializing Western countries, which had colonies from which to plunder resources and generate slave labor to feed this process, we have to colonize ourselves, our own nether parts. Weve begun to eat our own limbs. The greed that is being generated (and marketed as a value interchangeable with nationalism) can only be sated by grabbing land, water and resources from the vulnerable. What were witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. Its a vertical secession, not a lateral one. Theyre fighting for the right to merge with the worlds elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere. Theyve managed to commandeer the resources, the coal, the minerals, the bauxite, the water and electricity. Now they want the land to make more cars, more bombs, more mines supertoys for the new supercitizens of the new superpower. So its outright war, and people on both sides are choosing their weapons. The government and the corporations reach for structural adjustment, the World Bank, the ADB, FDI, friendly court orders, friendly policy makers, help from the friendly corporate media and a police force that will ram all this down peoples throats. Those who want to resist this process have, until now, reached for dharnas, hunger strikes, satyagraha, the courts and what they thought was friendly media. But now more and more are reaching for guns. Will the violence grow? If the growth rate and the Sensex are going to be the only barometers the government uses to measure progress and the well-being of people, then of course it will. How do I read the signs? It isnt hard to read sky-writing. What it says up there, in big letters, is this: the **** has hit the fan, folks.
You once remarked that though you may not resort to violence yourself, you think it has become immoral to condemn it, given the circumstances in the country. Can you elaborate on this view?
Id be a liability as a guerrilla! I doubt I used the word immoral morality is an elusive business, as changeable as the weather. What I feel is this: non-violent movements have knocked at the door of every democratic institution in this country for decades, and have been spurned and humiliated. Look at the Bhopal gas victims, the Narmada Bachao Andolan. The nba had a lot going for it high-profile leadership, media coverage, more resources than any other mass movement. What went wrong? People are bound to want to rethink strategy. When Sonia Gandhi begins to promote satyagraha at the World Economic Forum in Davos, its time for us to sit up and think. For example, is mass civil disobedience possible within the structure of a democratic nation state? Is it possible in the age of disinformation and corporate-controlled mass media? Are hunger strikes umbilically linked to celebrity politics? Would anybody care if the people of Nangla Machhi or Bhatti mines went on a hunger strike? Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for six years. That should be a lesson to many of us. Ive always felt that its ironic that hunger strikes are used as a political weapon in a land where most people go hungry anyway. We are in a different time and place now. Up against a different, more complex adversary. Weve entered the era of NGOs or should I say the era of paltu shers in which mass action can be a treacherous business. We have demonstrations which are funded, we have sponsored dharnas and social forums which make militant postures but never follow up on what they preach. We have all kinds of virtual resistance. Meetings against SEZs sponsored by the biggest promoters of SEZs. Awards and grants for environmental activism and community action given by corporations responsible for devastating whole ecosystems. Vedanta, a company mining bauxite in the forests of Orissa, wants to start a university. The Tatas have two charitable trusts that directly and indirectly fund activists and mass movements across the country. Could that be why Singur has drawn so much less flak than Nandigram? Of course the Tatas and Birlas funded Gandhi too maybe he was our first NGO. But now we have NGOs who make a lot of noise, write a lot of reports, but whom the sarkar is more than comfortable with. How do we make sense of all this? The place is crawling with professional diffusers of real political action. Virtual resistance has become something of a liability.
There was a time when mass movements looked to the courts for justice. The courts have rained down a series of judgments that are so unjust, so insulting to the poor in the language they use, they take your breath away. A recent Supreme Court judgment, allowing the Vasant Kunj Mall to resume construction though it didnt have the requisite clearances, said in so many words that the questions of corporations indulging in malpractice does not arise! In the ERA of corporate globalization, corporate land-grab, in the ERA of Enron and Monsanto, Halliburton and Bechtel, thats a loaded thing to say. It exposes the ideological heart of the most powerful institution in this country. The judiciary, along with the corporate press, is now seen as the lynchpin of the neo-liberal project.
In a climate like this, when people feel that they are being worn down, exhausted by these interminable democratic processes, only to be eventually humiliated, what are they supposed to do? Of course it isnt as though the only options are binary violence versus non-violence. There are political parties that believe in armed struggle but only as one part of their overall political strategy. Political workers in these struggles have been dealt with brutally, killed, beaten, imprisoned under false charges. People are fully aware that to take to arms is to call down upon yourself the myriad forms of the violence of the Indian State. The minute armed struggle becomes a strategy, your whole world shrinks and the colors fade to black and white. But when people decide to take that step because every other option has ended in despair, should we condemn them? Does anyone believe that if the people of Nandigram had held a dharna and sung songs, the West Bengal government would have backed down? We are living in times when to be ineffective is to support the status quo (which no doubt suits some of us). And being effective comes at a terrible price. I find it hard to condemn people who are prepared to pay that price.
You have been traveling a lot on the ground can you give us a sense of the trouble spots you have been to? Can you outline a few of the combat lines in these places?
Huge question what can I say? The military occupation of Kashmir, neo-fascism in Gujarat, civil war in Chhattisgarh, MNCs raping Orissa, the submergence of hundreds of villages in the Narmada Valley, people living on the edge of absolute starvation, the devastation of forest land, the Bhopal victims living to see the West Bengal government re-wooing Union Carbide now calling itself Dow Chemicals in Nandigram. I havent been recently to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, but we know about the almost hundred thousand farmers who have killed themselves. We know about the fake encounters and the terrible repression in Andhra Pradesh. Each of these places has its own particular history, economy, ecology. None is amenable to easy analysis. And yet there is connecting tissue, there are huge international cultural and economic pressures being brought to bear on them. How can I not mention the Hindutva project, spreading its poison sub-cutaneously, waiting to erupt once again? Id say the biggest indictment of all is that we are still a country, a culture, a society which continues to nurture and practice the notion of untouchability. While our economists number-crunch and boast about the growth rate, a million people human scavengers earn their living carrying several kilos of other peoples **** on their heads every day. And if they didnt carry **** on their heads they would starve to death. Some ******* superpower this.
How does one view the recent State and police violence in Bengal?
No different from police and State violence anywhere else including the issue of hypocrisy and doublespeak so perfected by all political parties including the mainstream Left. Are Communist bullets different from capitalist ones? Odd things are happening. It snowed in Saudi Arabia. Owls are out in broad daylight. The Chinese government tabled a bill sanctioning the right to private property. I dont know if all of this has to do with climate change. The Chinese Communists are turning out to be the biggest capitalists of the 21st century. Why should we expect our own parliamentary Left to be any different? Nandigram and Singur are clear signals. It makes you wonder is the last stop of every revolution advanced capitalism? Think about it the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Vietnam War, the anti-apartheid struggle, the supposedly Gandhian freedom struggle in India whats the last station they all pull in at? Is this the end of imagination?
The Maoist attack in Bijapur the death of 55 policemen. Are the rebels only the flip side of the State?
How can the rebels be the flip side of the State? Would anybody say that those who fought against apartheid however brutal their methods were the flip side of the State? What about those who fought the French in Algeria? Or those who fought the Nazis? Or those who fought colonial regimes? Or those who are fighting the US occupation of Iraq? Are they the flip side of the State? This facile new report-driven human rights discourse, this meaningless condemnation game that we are all forced to play, makes politicians of us all and leaches the real politics out of everything. However pristine we would like to be, however hard we polish our halos, the tragedy is that we have run out of pristine choices. There is a civil war in Chhattisgarh sponsored, created by the Chhattisgarh government, which is publicly pursing the Bush doctrine: if youre not with us, you are with the terrorists. The lynchpin of this war, apart from the formal security forces, is the Salva Judum a government-backed militia of ordinary people forced to take up arms, forced to become SPOs (special police officers). The Indian State has tried this in Kashmir, in Manipur, in Nagaland. Tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands tortured, thousands have disappeared. Any banana republic would be proud of this record. Now the government wants to import these failed strategies into the heartland. Thousands of adivasis have been forcibly moved off their mineral-rich lands into police camps. Hundreds of villages have been forcibly evacuated. Those lands, rich in iron-ore, are being eyed by corporations like the Tatas and Essar. Mous have been signed, but no one knows what they say. Land acquisition has begun. This kind of thing happened in countries like Colombia one of the most devastated countries in the world. While everybodys eyes are fixed on the spiraling violence between government-backed militias and guerrilla squads, multinational corporations quietly make off with the mineral wealth. Thats the little piece of theater being scripted for us in Chhattisgarh.
Of course its horrible that 55 policemen were killed. But theyre as much the victims of government policy as anybody else. For the government and the corporations theyre just cannon fodder theres plenty more where they came from. Crocodile tears will be shed, prim TV anchors will hector us for a while and then more supplies of fodder will be arranged. For the Maoist guerrillas, the police and SPOs they killed were the armed personnel of the Indian State, the main, hands-on perpetrators of repression, torture, custodial killings, false encounters. Theyre not innocent civilians if such a thing exists by any stretch of imagination.
I have no doubt that the Maoists can be agents of terror and coercion too. I have no doubt they have committed unspeakable atrocities. I have no doubt they cannot lay claim to undisputed support from local people but who can? Still, no guerrilla army can survive without local support. Thats a logistical impossibility. And the support for Maoists is growing, not diminishing. That says something. People have no choice but to align themselves on the side of whoever they think is less worse.
But to equate a resistance movement fighting against enormous injustice with the government which enforces that injustice is absurd. The government has slammed the door in the face of every attempt at non-violent resistance. When people take to arms, there is going to be all kinds of violence revolutionary, lumpen and outright criminal. The government is responsible for the monstrous situations it creates.
Naxals, Maoists, outsiders: these are terms being very loosely used these days.
Outsiders is a generic accusation used in the early stages of repression by governments who have begun to believe their own publicity and cant imagine that their own people have risen up against them. Thats the stage the CPM is at now in Bengal, though some would say repression in Bengal is not new, it has only moved into higher gear. In any case, whats an outsider? Who decides the borders? Are they village boundaries? Tehsil? Block? District? State? Is narrow regional and ethnic politics the new Communist mantra? About Naxals and Maoists well India is about to become a police state in which everybody who disagrees with whats going on risks being called a terrorist. Islamic terrorists have to be Islamic so thats not good enough to cover most of us. They need a bigger catchment area. So leaving the definition loose, undefined, is effective strategy, because the time is not far off when well all be called Maoists or Naxalites, terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and shut down by people who dont really know or care who Maoists or Naxalites are. In villages, of course, that has begun thousands of people are being held in jails across the country, loosely charged with being terrorists trying to overthrow the state. Who are the real Naxalites and Maoists? Im not an authority on the subject, but heres a very rudimentary potted history.
The Communist Party of India, the CPI, was formed in 1925. The CPI (M), or what we now call the CPM the Communist Party Marxist split from the CPI in 1964 and formed a separate party. Both, of course, were parliamentary political parties. In 1967, the CPM, along with a splinter group of the Congress, came to power in West Bengal. At the time there was massive unrest among the peasantry starving in the countryside. Local CPM leaders Kanu Sanyal and Charu Mazumdar led a peasant uprising in the district of Naxalbari which is where the term Naxalites comes from. In 1969, the government fell and the Congress came back to power under Siddhartha Shankar Ray. The Naxalite uprising was mercilessly crushed Mahasweta Devi has written powerfully about this time. In 1969, the CPI (ML) Marxist Leninist split from the CPM. A few years later, around 1971, the CPI (ML) devolved into several parties: the CPM-ML (Liberation), largely centered in Bihar; the CPM-ML (New Democracy), functioning for the most part out of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar; the CPM-ML (Class Struggle) mainly in Bengal. These parties have been generically baptised Naxalites. They see themselves as Marxist Leninist, not strictly speaking Maoist. They believe in elections, mass action and when absolutely pushed to the wall or attacked armed struggle. The MCC the Maoist Communist Centre, at the time mostly operating in Bihar was formed in 1968. The PW, Peoples War, operational for the most part in Andhra Pradesh, was formed in 1980. Recently, in 2004, the MCC and the pw merged to form the CPI (Maoist) They believe in outright armed struggle and the overthrowing of the State. They dont participate in elections. This is the party that is fighting the guerrilla war in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand.
The Indian State and media largely view the Maoists as an internal security threat. Is this the way to look at them?
Im sure the Maoists would be flattered to be viewed in this way.
The Maoists want to bring down the State. Given the autocratic ideology they take their inspiration from, what alternative would they set up? Wouldnt their regime be an exploitative, autocratic, violent one as well? Isnt their action already exploitative of ordinary people? Do they really have the support of ordinary people?
I think its important for us to acknowledge that both Mao and Stalin are dubious heroes with murderous pasts. Tens of millions of people were killed under their regimes. Apart from what happened in China and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, with the support of the Chinese Communist Party (while the West looked discreetly away), wiped out two million people in Cambodia and brought millions of people to the brink of extinction from disease and starvation. Can we pretend that Chinas cultural revolution didnt happen? Or that millions of people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were not victims of labor camps, torture chambers, the network of spies and informers, the secret police. The history of these regimes is just as dark as the history of Western imperialism, except for the fact that they had a shorter life-span. We cannot condemn the occupation of Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir while we remain silent about Tibet and Chechnya. I would imagine that for the Maoists, the Naxalites, as well as the mainstream Left, being honest about the past is important to strengthen peoples faith in the future. One hopes the past will not be repeated, but denying that it ever happened doesnt help inspire confidence Nevertheless, the Maoists in Nepal have waged a brave and successful struggle against the monarchy. Right now, in India, the Maoists and the various Marxist-Leninist groups are leading the fight against immense injustice here. They are fighting not just the State, but feudal landlords and their armed militias. They are the only people who are making a dent. And I admire that. It may well be that when they come to power, they will, as you say, be brutal, unjust and autocratic, or even worse than the present government. Maybe, but Im not prepared to assume that in advance. If they are, well have to fight them too. And most likely someone like myself will be the first person theyll string up from the nearest tree but right now, it is important to acknowledge that they are bearing the brunt of being at the forefront of resistance. Many of us are in a position where we are beginning to align ourselves on the side of those who we know have no place for us in their religious or ideological imagination. Its true that everybody changes radically when they come to power look at Mandelas ANC. Corrupt, capitalist, bowing to the IMF driving the poor out of their homes honoring Suharto, the killer of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian Communists, with South Africas highest civilian award. Who would have thought it could happen? But does this mean South Africans should have backed away from the struggle against apartheid? Or that they should regret it now? Does it mean Algeria should have remained a French colony, that Kashmiris, Iraqis and Palestinians should accept military occupation? That people whose dignity is being assaulted should give up the fight because they cant find saints to lead them into battle?
www.commondream.org
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Finally I found a convert ..... LOL!
salman nedian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 0
Congratulations Munshi!
salman nedian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 0
Remember the Fall of USSR.
Oh please don't flatter us by comparing us poor third world Indians to the USSR. By the way, i agree, India's time is near, the collapse is imminent. Can see it unfolding in front of my eyes everyday. All that talk of +9% growth, +trillion $ gdp, +200$ billion reserves, huge multinationals being swallowed whole by Indian companies, middle class expanding by the millions every year, declining poverty and illiteracy rates, rising income levels, is just that, talk.
Us evil yindoos have perpetrated a grand Maskirovka, to blind the world of our genocide against 'dalits' and 'muslims'. Its a diabolical scheme to forestall the rise of the 'Ummah'. After all, world media is controlled by the evil Jews and their Yindoo minions.
India will fall like the hollow house of cards it is, inshallah !!!
Us evil yindoos have perpetrated a grand Maskirovka, to blind the world of our genocide against 'dalits' and 'muslims'. Its a diabolical scheme to forestall the rise of the 'Ummah'. After all, world media is controlled by the evil Jews and their Yindoo minions.
India will fall like the hollow house of cards it is, inshallah !!!
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Dude........
that was a good one. Cant just stand a Bdeshi come and advice us on our short comings.
intruder
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2007
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 0
Similar threads
- Article
