FOCUS
NAXALS & FUTILITY OF VIOLENCE
In the context of violence all around us, the importance of Mahatma’s principles of non-violence appears the only solution.
Although violence is a global phenomena, in the Indian context it is the naxalite menace that is causing serious concern.
Mahatma Gandhi objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in a situation of armed conflict, but also because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved and left as its legacy a trial of hatred and bitterness because of which harmony and reconciliation became almost impossible.
The relevance of Mahatma, in an increasingly violent world, does not require to be repeated. But in the world of facts, probably it needs to be repeated every now and then to keep alive the legacy, which no other human being must have left behind for any future generation that followed.
In the context of violence all around us, the importance of Mahatma’s principles of non-violence appears the only solution.
Although violence is a global phenomena, in the Indian context it is the naxalite menace that is causing serious concern.
Mahatma Gandhi objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in a situation of armed conflict, but also because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved and left as its legacy a trial of hatred and bitterness because of which harmony and reconciliation became almost impossible.
The relevance of Mahatma, in an increasingly violent world, does not require to be repeated. But in the world of facts, probably it needs to be repeated every now and then to keep alive the legacy, which no other human being must have left behind for any future generation that followed.
The Focus is basically on Naxals and the futility of use of violence in any human movement. Incidents involving and views on Mahatma Gandhi has been reproduced not merely to remember him but also to stress the relevance of non-violence as a means of achieving socio-political objectives.
Editor
Editor
"In the evolution of civilization if it is to survive, all men cannot fail eventually to adopt Gandhi’s belief that the process of mass application of force to resolve contentious issues is fundamentally not only wrong but contains within itself the germs of self destruction" wrote Gen. Douglas Mcarther, the then Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, condoling the death of Mahatma Gandhi. It was in 1948. Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. 61 years down the line
, the world is increasingly polarized in bloody conflict, all in pursuance of ‘me and mine’ programme.
Gen. Mcarther, born in Arkansas U.S. in 1880, joined the U.S. army in 1903. Became its Chief of staff in 1935. In 1941 he became the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces. In 1951, President Truman, relieved him due to acute differences with the U.S. Democratic administration, because of his using Formosa based nationalist forces against Chinese communists, as the Commander-in-Chief of U.N. Forces. He was decorated 13 times and was cited seven additional times for bravery,during his over 48 years military service. In 1952, he tried for U.S. Presidential nomination, but failed. A brilliant military leader and a ruler of Japan was imbued with deep moral sense.
Despite Gen. Douglas Mcarther being seasoned war veteran, having lived a long life of uniform , he has come to recognise the harsh ‘take home truth’ that relevance of Mahatma Gandhi and his brand of socio-polit
ical philosophy is the only candle available to light the dark alleys the world is increasingly being pushed into.
In the context of violence all around us, the importance of Mahatma’s principles of non-violence appears the only solution.
Although violence is a global phenomena, in the Indian context it is the naxalite menace that is causing serious concern.
Mahatma Gandhi objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in a situation of armed conflict, but also because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved and left as its legacy a trial of hatred and bitterness because of which harmony and reconciliation became almost impossible.
Of course, Mahatma’s concept of non-violence did not limit it to physical violence alone. It was his fundamental belief that ill-will and hatred are as much violent in cramping and killing humanity slowly but surely. Gandhijis non-violence was aimed at liberating men and women from inner as well as outer violence.
"Naxal violence claims 2600 lives in 3 years" informs a latest release from PTI. The naxalites, who have become the gravest internal security threat forcing the centre to plan an all-out offensive against them, have killed more than 2600 people in the last 3 years" stated the release "We have witnessed more than 5800 incidents of Naxal violence across the country during the period forcing the government to announce a new strategy to deal with the menace which is growing at an alarming pace in many states" A home ministry official was reported to have stated. According to the ministry sources around 1200 people were killed by Maoists in Chattisgarh alone during this period.
The relevance of Mahatma, in an increasingly violent world, does not require to be repeated. But in the world of facts, probably it needs to be repeated every now and then to keep alive the legacy, which no other human being must have left behind for any future generation that followed.
The westernised suited booted lawyer was traveling in a train in South Africa on a first class ticket. ‘How dare’! screamed the white ticket checker, and asked him to move to the 3rd class. For the refusal to act on the instruction, he was thrown out-‘Lock-stock &barrel’ at Maritzburg station, enrout Transvaal to Pretoria. Sitting on the platform, in the cold shivering night, having endured the insult, he wrestled within himself, whether to sail back to India by the first available ship, or to fight to the bitter end. As the day broke into a sunny dawn, he made up his mind to play the man. And the man, he did play, as no other human being could have ever played, apparently moving Albert Einstein to remark "Generations to come would scarce believe that such a one as this-in flesh and blood- ever walked upon this earth". Yes, he stood up to the might of British empire and left, for the benefit of posterity, unmistakably indelible mark in the history of human movements, the world over.
Yes, Naxalism too is a human movement, a movement started to get justice to the apparently aggrieved and marginalised section of our agrarian society. Of course Mahatma Gnandhi, during most of his life time had limited objectives of political independence of India and to liberate Indians from the apartheid regime of South Africa of 19th century. Same cannot be said of Naxal movement.
Going back to the movement of Naxal, from Charu Mujumdar to Kanu Sanyal to Vara Vara Rao to Saket Rajan to Kobad Gandhy the movement have seen many educated and dedicated leaders. Started with the objective of social empowerment of the marginalised and impoverished section of our society, it took to arms wanting to bring change through violent methods. While there may be justification in some cases to resort to violence, many times this violence, was totally unjustified and many innocents became its victims. The recent spurt in senseless violence has indeed caused a bit of rupture in the public sympathy for their cause.
Month of October witnessed series of deadly attacks. 3rd Oct carried the news ‘Maoists kill 16 villagers in Bihar. 6th Oct had this headline " Mob goes on rampage". 7th Oct
. reported "Maoists behead a police officer". "Maoists kill 17 cops in Gadchiroli" was the front page news of 9th Oct. "Maoists go berserk in Bihar and Jarkhand" was the news on 14th Oct. Thus every other day Maoist attack has been going on as if to warn that Maoist have declared war on the Indian state. Oct 13, the print media reported "Armed Maoists on Tuesday (12th) set ablaze a rail panel room, blew up a block office in Bihar, blasted railway tracks and a school building in Jharkhand besides destroying mobile phone towers to protest crackdown against them. Maoist also took hostage six railway staff and freed them later with a warning not to run train when they declare bundhs.
Killings, disruption of public services and destruction of public property can in no way help the cause of perceived injustice to the Maoists and their cadres. On the contrary the governments, both in state and centre are slowly coming to terms of using military power against Maoist strongholds. But this is what Naxals do not want. Naxals do realise that any army operation can leave their movement crippled since there is a genuine fear that any army operation against naxals can leave lot of them dead.
Of course, the government too is not in one mind for the use of army against naxal hide outs. While use of military can be an option, it need not be the only one, since Naxal menace has its genesis in so many socio-economic complexities.
It has a history of over 40 years. It was on May 25, in 1967, a tribal youth was attacked by the goons of local landlords in Naxalbari village in Darjiling district of West Bengal. Farmers of Naxalbari joined to-gether to rescue the youth and to retaliate. Thus started the movement called Naxalite movement. It has not looked back since then. It has only grown from strength to strength. The reason is not too far to seek. Successive governments for all the 62 post independent years, whether in Centre or State, has left a huge section of its population bereft of any development fruits. Naxal movement has only tried to organise these marginalised sections into a united cohesive unit. If over the years it has not frittered away, it is only because it found sustenance from the official apathy and neglect, despite the 11 five-yearly development plans. The growth of Naxalite movement can as well be a study of how all these development plans have miserably failed in its redistributive justice.
No wonder, Naxalites or Maoists as they are also called, claim to be the voice of the underprivileged, deprived and marginalised section of India who were left untouched by the development, where India did not shine at all. This section comprising tribals from whom land and livelihood have been snatched away by deforestation and allotment of forest land for development undertakings. Then there are those displaced by projects like dams, hydro electricity generation and other industries. Then there are farmers who have been rendered desolate by years of systemic neglect of the agri sector. Then, like a journalist puts it "those eternally at the mercy of privileged caste and class in the feudal society which is still strong in India"
It is true that there have been massive neglect and denial of the legitimate claim of these marginalised section in Indian Society. It is also true that adequate response from the system did not come forth to address the inequity in the distribution process. Despite the right noises from some section of the civil society, the issue of injustice in reaching out to the marginalised remained a mirage. The resultant desperation has only pushed this section to violence. But would violence bring about social justice? Would it address the core issues of redistribution and empowerment? Would it spur the system to change to the betterment of the aggrieved section? Answer is an emphatic‘NO’!
, the world is increasingly polarized in bloody conflict, all in pursuance of ‘me and mine’ programme.Gen. Mcarther, born in Arkansas U.S. in 1880, joined the U.S. army in 1903. Became its Chief of staff in 1935. In 1941 he became the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces. In 1951, President Truman, relieved him due to acute differences with the U.S. Democratic administration, because of his using Formosa based nationalist forces against Chinese communists, as the Commander-in-Chief of U.N. Forces. He was decorated 13 times and was cited seven additional times for bravery,during his over 48 years military service. In 1952, he tried for U.S. Presidential nomination, but failed. A brilliant military leader and a ruler of Japan was imbued with deep moral sense.
Despite Gen. Douglas Mcarther being seasoned war veteran, having lived a long life of uniform , he has come to recognise the harsh ‘take home truth’ that relevance of Mahatma Gandhi and his brand of socio-polit
ical philosophy is the only candle available to light the dark alleys the world is increasingly being pushed into.In the context of violence all around us, the importance of Mahatma’s principles of non-violence appears the only solution.
Although violence is a global phenomena, in the Indian context it is the naxalite menace that is causing serious concern.
Mahatma Gandhi objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in a situation of armed conflict, but also because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved and left as its legacy a trial of hatred and bitterness because of which harmony and reconciliation became almost impossible.
Of course, Mahatma’s concept of non-violence did not limit it to physical violence alone. It was his fundamental belief that ill-will and hatred are as much violent in cramping and killing humanity slowly but surely. Gandhijis non-violence was aimed at liberating men and women from inner as well as outer violence.
"Naxal violence claims 2600 lives in 3 years" informs a latest release from PTI. The naxalites, who have become the gravest internal security threat forcing the centre to plan an all-out offensive against them, have killed more than 2600 people in the last 3 years" stated the release "We have witnessed more than 5800 incidents of Naxal violence across the country during the period forcing the government to announce a new strategy to deal with the menace which is growing at an alarming pace in many states" A home ministry official was reported to have stated. According to the ministry sources around 1200 people were killed by Maoists in Chattisgarh alone during this period.
The relevance of Mahatma, in an increasingly violent world, does not require to be repeated. But in the world of facts, probably it needs to be repeated every now and then to keep alive the legacy, which no other human being must have left behind for any future generation that followed.
The westernised suited booted lawyer was traveling in a train in South Africa on a first class ticket. ‘How dare’! screamed the white ticket checker, and asked him to move to the 3rd class. For the refusal to act on the instruction, he was thrown out-‘Lock-stock &barrel’ at Maritzburg station, enrout Transvaal to Pretoria. Sitting on the platform, in the cold shivering night, having endured the insult, he wrestled within himself, whether to sail back to India by the first available ship, or to fight to the bitter end. As the day broke into a sunny dawn, he made up his mind to play the man. And the man, he did play, as no other human being could have ever played, apparently moving Albert Einstein to remark "Generations to come would scarce believe that such a one as this-in flesh and blood- ever walked upon this earth". Yes, he stood up to the might of British empire and left, for the benefit of posterity, unmistakably indelible mark in the history of human movements, the world over.
Yes, Naxalism too is a human movement, a movement started to get justice to the apparently aggrieved and marginalised section of our agrarian society. Of course Mahatma Gnandhi, during most of his life time had limited objectives of political independence of India and to liberate Indians from the apartheid regime of South Africa of 19th century. Same cannot be said of Naxal movement.
Going back to the movement of Naxal, from Charu Mujumdar to Kanu Sanyal to Vara Vara Rao to Saket Rajan to Kobad Gandhy the movement have seen many educated and dedicated leaders. Started with the objective of social empowerment of the marginalised and impoverished section of our society, it took to arms wanting to bring change through violent methods. While there may be justification in some cases to resort to violence, many times this violence, was totally unjustified and many innocents became its victims. The recent spurt in senseless violence has indeed caused a bit of rupture in the public sympathy for their cause.
Month of October witnessed series of deadly attacks. 3rd Oct carried the news ‘Maoists kill 16 villagers in Bihar. 6th Oct had this headline " Mob goes on rampage". 7th Oct
. reported "Maoists behead a police officer". "Maoists kill 17 cops in Gadchiroli" was the front page news of 9th Oct. "Maoists go berserk in Bihar and Jarkhand" was the news on 14th Oct. Thus every other day Maoist attack has been going on as if to warn that Maoist have declared war on the Indian state. Oct 13, the print media reported "Armed Maoists on Tuesday (12th) set ablaze a rail panel room, blew up a block office in Bihar, blasted railway tracks and a school building in Jharkhand besides destroying mobile phone towers to protest crackdown against them. Maoist also took hostage six railway staff and freed them later with a warning not to run train when they declare bundhs.Killings, disruption of public services and destruction of public property can in no way help the cause of perceived injustice to the Maoists and their cadres. On the contrary the governments, both in state and centre are slowly coming to terms of using military power against Maoist strongholds. But this is what Naxals do not want. Naxals do realise that any army operation can leave their movement crippled since there is a genuine fear that any army operation against naxals can leave lot of them dead.
Of course, the government too is not in one mind for the use of army against naxal hide outs. While use of military can be an option, it need not be the only one, since Naxal menace has its genesis in so many socio-economic complexities.
It has a history of over 40 years. It was on May 25, in 1967, a tribal youth was attacked by the goons of local landlords in Naxalbari village in Darjiling district of West Bengal. Farmers of Naxalbari joined to-gether to rescue the youth and to retaliate. Thus started the movement called Naxalite movement. It has not looked back since then. It has only grown from strength to strength. The reason is not too far to seek. Successive governments for all the 62 post independent years, whether in Centre or State, has left a huge section of its population bereft of any development fruits. Naxal movement has only tried to organise these marginalised sections into a united cohesive unit. If over the years it has not frittered away, it is only because it found sustenance from the official apathy and neglect, despite the 11 five-yearly development plans. The growth of Naxalite movement can as well be a study of how all these development plans have miserably failed in its redistributive justice.
No wonder, Naxalites or Maoists as they are also called, claim to be the voice of the underprivileged, deprived and marginalised section of India who were left untouched by the development, where India did not shine at all. This section comprising tribals from whom land and livelihood have been snatched away by deforestation and allotment of forest land for development undertakings. Then there are those displaced by projects like dams, hydro electricity generation and other industries. Then there are farmers who have been rendered desolate by years of systemic neglect of the agri sector. Then, like a journalist puts it "those eternally at the mercy of privileged caste and class in the feudal society which is still strong in India"
It is true that there have been massive neglect and denial of the legitimate claim of these marginalised section in Indian Society. It is also true that adequate response from the system did not come forth to address the inequity in the distribution process. Despite the right noises from some section of the civil society, the issue of injustice in reaching out to the marginalised remained a mirage. The resultant desperation has only pushed this section to violence. But would violence bring about social justice? Would it address the core issues of redistribution and empowerment? Would it spur the system to change to the betterment of the aggrieved section? Answer is an emphatic‘NO’!
Violence was always met with more violence. It’s a natural corollary. In the present state of things, state remains unchallenged. Any challenge to the state shall be taken head-on. That’s a fact. This cannot be changed. And naxals must accept this. We have before us the insurgency in Punjab and how despite all conciliatory approach by the government in Delhi police under KPS Gill had to use brute force and it all went quite. So was the LTTE story in Sri Lanka. Yes those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
It is true that naxals have the support of a huge section, so also a section of intelligent and civil society. But when all is said and done, state has the ability to hit hard and decisive, if only they decide. If the state has so far not decided in the use of its conventional force, it is because there are enough saner elements in civil society who believe in Gandhian principle of dialogue and recourse to peaceful means. Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee are openly against the use of army. But the increasing level of violence by Naxals in recent days, are diminishing, perforce, the option before the government.
It is true that naxals have the support of a huge section, so also a section of intelligent and civil society. But when all is said and done, state has the ability to hit hard and decisive, if only they decide. If the state has so far not decided in the use of its conventional force, it is because there are enough saner elements in civil society who believe in Gandhian principle of dialogue and recourse to peaceful means. Both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee are openly against the use of army. But the increasing level of violence by Naxals in recent days, are diminishing, perforce, the option before the government.
The recent hold up of Bhubaneshwar-Delhi Rajadhani Express has only increased the pressure on the government to act decisively. If that happens, the movement may be crushed, but the discontent will remain which can become hydra in days to follow. Surely nobody wants a situation of that kind. The leadership of Maoists has to have a middle of the road approach. People like Kishenji, who has become vocal and very assertive in recent days must be silenced in the overall interest of the movement and the larger issue of state participation.
It has to be accepted by the powers that be that in more than one sense naxalites as a group represent the failure of Indian state, and this group constitute a bloody manifestation of a terrible internal malady with signs of being chronic, in our body politic. As a blogger puts it "These terror merchants are the fall out of free India’s skewed developmental model rooted in an unwritten exclusionist definition of progress. They claim to be the voice of an exploited, downtrodden, hungry, homeless and abused section of humanity in a country spoken of, as an emerging super power.
The Ambani brothers fight over their billions and the government intervenes surreptitiously and keenly await the outcome of this Family feud.
On the other side, the downtrodden gets killed, their women raped, land snatched and are rendered without shelter. But successive governments just ignored to address the issue with seriousness." Yes as it is often said, our governments followed a policy of crying with the poor but sided the rich.
However, taking to arms by these disill
usioned men and women Naxals, to address and redress their problems, has not taken it anywhere. Violence by the state, in response, has only increased the violent repetition from naxals, but they are not going to win by violent methods. Their leadership, especially the city based intelligentia has to convince the grassroot leadership that violence cannot and will not pay. There are better ways.
Of course the proposal to send Indian army or the Indian Air force is not without its inherent problems. There is a section of opinion makers, across the spectrum who do not subscribe to the theory of army/ air force intervention. As usual there are many buyers of this theory, who harps only on military solution. And then you have this supercop, Mr K P S Gill, famously referred to as the man who brought peace to Punjab. He had as the D G P, brought about the open surrender of the terrorists in full view of the media. On asking, in the background of the proposed army operation against Naxals, his view about the kind of approach, he has reportedly told the media "Do we want our troops to get stuck like Americans in Afghanistan. How can we use our army against our own people. Operation Green Hunt will be a big failure, who is the state hunting". According to him, insurgency in Punjab and naxal menace in different parts of India are not the same thing. One was separatist and other is bread and butter, although due to leadership dimension it has become violent like the proletarian movement of the yore. "This operation is dangerous trap" says a security expert "You are looking for Ramlal, you’ll end up killing his relatives", which is quite likely knowing the track record of our security forces.
Yes. Home Minister Chidambaram has asked them to lay down arms and then come to negotiating table. There are enough men and women, in politics and in government, who recognise that there are issues to be addressed earnestly. Naxals leadership must extend their hands to such people.
But what are the chances, that they would do it?
There are equally enough people who believes that the present leadership of Naxals is political. Their ultimate goal is gaining political power and they are only using these tribals as pawns. That th
ese Maoists have only hijacked the cause of these tribals. Thus by hindsight it can be safely said that by terrorising the system they are also terrorising the very people they claim to fight for. Breach in the trust between Naxals and ordinary tribals was visible after the murder of police inspector Francis Induwar, since he too was tribal. Thus, the question is, do Naxals have the whole hearted support of these tribals and other marginalised sections they apparently represent?
Whatever the case, it will not be an easy task to bring them to the negotiating table. And how much can the government negotiate/compromise with an outfit which swears by violence and indulges in brutal mass murder and heineous and torturous methods of killing innocent hostages?
But what the government can and should do is to create a sustainable system to address the problems of those Indian citizens who are totally distressed and could till now partake of none of the benefits of ‘development’. If this issue is addressed aggressively and substantially with a well structured plan executed efficiently, these extremists group would lose their foothold in their base, the people.
It is indeed a mammoth task for the government with the type of graft that has stricken our system like a disease, one must admit. But the government can no longer throw up its hands in helplessness. It simply can’t afford to. It should squarely face the hungry heartland of India, which bleeds with years of neglect and failure of governance.
It has to be accepted by the powers that be that in more than one sense naxalites as a group represent the failure of Indian state, and this group constitute a bloody manifestation of a terrible internal malady with signs of being chronic, in our body politic. As a blogger puts it "These terror merchants are the fall out of free India’s skewed developmental model rooted in an unwritten exclusionist definition of progress. They claim to be the voice of an exploited, downtrodden, hungry, homeless and abused section of humanity in a country spoken of, as an emerging super power.
The Ambani brothers fight over their billions and the government intervenes surreptitiously and keenly await the outcome of this Family feud.
On the other side, the downtrodden gets killed, their women raped, land snatched and are rendered without shelter. But successive governments just ignored to address the issue with seriousness." Yes as it is often said, our governments followed a policy of crying with the poor but sided the rich.
However, taking to arms by these disill
usioned men and women Naxals, to address and redress their problems, has not taken it anywhere. Violence by the state, in response, has only increased the violent repetition from naxals, but they are not going to win by violent methods. Their leadership, especially the city based intelligentia has to convince the grassroot leadership that violence cannot and will not pay. There are better ways.Of course the proposal to send Indian army or the Indian Air force is not without its inherent problems. There is a section of opinion makers, across the spectrum who do not subscribe to the theory of army/ air force intervention. As usual there are many buyers of this theory, who harps only on military solution. And then you have this supercop, Mr K P S Gill, famously referred to as the man who brought peace to Punjab. He had as the D G P, brought about the open surrender of the terrorists in full view of the media. On asking, in the background of the proposed army operation against Naxals, his view about the kind of approach, he has reportedly told the media "Do we want our troops to get stuck like Americans in Afghanistan. How can we use our army against our own people. Operation Green Hunt will be a big failure, who is the state hunting". According to him, insurgency in Punjab and naxal menace in different parts of India are not the same thing. One was separatist and other is bread and butter, although due to leadership dimension it has become violent like the proletarian movement of the yore. "This operation is dangerous trap" says a security expert "You are looking for Ramlal, you’ll end up killing his relatives", which is quite likely knowing the track record of our security forces.
Yes. Home Minister Chidambaram has asked them to lay down arms and then come to negotiating table. There are enough men and women, in politics and in government, who recognise that there are issues to be addressed earnestly. Naxals leadership must extend their hands to such people.
But what are the chances, that they would do it?
There are equally enough people who believes that the present leadership of Naxals is political. Their ultimate goal is gaining political power and they are only using these tribals as pawns. That th
ese Maoists have only hijacked the cause of these tribals. Thus by hindsight it can be safely said that by terrorising the system they are also terrorising the very people they claim to fight for. Breach in the trust between Naxals and ordinary tribals was visible after the murder of police inspector Francis Induwar, since he too was tribal. Thus, the question is, do Naxals have the whole hearted support of these tribals and other marginalised sections they apparently represent?Whatever the case, it will not be an easy task to bring them to the negotiating table. And how much can the government negotiate/compromise with an outfit which swears by violence and indulges in brutal mass murder and heineous and torturous methods of killing innocent hostages?
But what the government can and should do is to create a sustainable system to address the problems of those Indian citizens who are totally distressed and could till now partake of none of the benefits of ‘development’. If this issue is addressed aggressively and substantially with a well structured plan executed efficiently, these extremists group would lose their foothold in their base, the people.
It is indeed a mammoth task for the government with the type of graft that has stricken our system like a disease, one must admit. But the government can no longer throw up its hands in helplessness. It simply can’t afford to. It should squarely face the hungry heartland of India, which bleeds with years of neglect and failure of governance.
Comments