The Serpent We Forgive And Forget
Tehelka
ENGAGED CIRCLE – civil violence
It is high time civil society owned up to and condemned the violence inflicted by revolutionary groups
APOORVANAND
Writer & Literary Critic
THE FIRST three phases of the 2009 Lok Sabha elections have passed peacefully. Not taking into account the Maoist killings of poll officials and police personnel during elections. Although in Maoist strongholds, they pressed civilians to boycott elections, the people chose, instead, to risk their lives and exercise their right to vote. Most recently, the tribals of Lalgarh in West Bengal defied the Maoist boycott call and voted. Unable to convince the masses, the Maoists have resorted to the old strategy of ambushing poll parties and demolishing public property to mark their presence. Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Bihar and West Bengal witnessed violence by armed groups of Maoists. Interestingly, they have not, in any statement issued, owned up to these acts.
In West Bengal, men from the CPI(M) cadre were killed for defying the Maoist diktat ordering them to leave the party. To consolidate their position in the state they are taking advantage of the anger and frustration of the people toward the arrogant and violent CPI(M) party machinery. None of us who have been vocal against the violence of the CPI(M) in Singur and Nandigram have voiced our opinion on the Maoist killings. Last year, in Bihar and Jharkhand, members of the CPI(M) and JD(U) were killed for being in the ‘wrong’ parties. And yet, not one word of condemnation from us who find every single act of state violence repugnant! Do we see natural justice taking its rightful course in the killings of the CPI(M) cadre?
Recently, while addressing a gathering on the Sri Lankan crisis, Varavara Rao, the public ideologue of the Maoists, tried hard to justify the violent methods used by the LTTE. Rao has been consistently justifying the violent attacks by the Maoists in India by calling them “acts of resistance”. Were the recent killings of the poll officials also acts of resistance? Resistance against the assault of parliamentary democracy? When asked, Rao trivialised the killings of innocent people by revolutionaries, asserting that “these were matters of details”.
To defend Maoist killings, Rao could have as well used the term ‘collateral damage’, invented by the Americans to justify the killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems to suggest that this is an inevitable price the masses have to pay when they are passing through a phase of class struggle. This utter lack of remorse is reminiscent of the tough Stalinist era, which saw lives disappearing in the maze of the continuum of revolutions. Going back even further, Lenin was condemned by Maxim Gorky for encouraging the proletariat violence after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In 1917, he wrote in Novaya Zhizn: “Lenin, Trotsky, and their companions have already become poisoned with the filthy venom of power, and this is evidenced by their shameful attitude toward freedom of speech, the individual, and the sum total of those rights for the triumph of which democracy struggled… On this road Lenin and his associates consider it possible to commit all kinds of crimes, such as the slaughter outside St Petersburg, the destruction of Moscow, and the abolition of freedom of speech and the senseless arrests.” He further asks, “Does not Lenin’s government, as the Romanov government did, seize and drag off to prison all those who think differently?”
It was the courage and honesty of a true writer which enabled Gorky to speak in the face of ‘revolution’. We, however, seem to think differently. We let the crimes committed by revolutionaries pass off. Last year, when there was a move to issue a statement condemning such violence, there were efforts to dissuade people from signing it by asking questions like: “By doing so would we not be equating people’s violence with state violence?” and “How do we know that these killings were committed by Maoists and not the state forces themselves to discredit them?” While the first question involves a theoretical position, one cannot miss the clever opportunism behind the second question, which seeks to fudge facts when they are not comfortable.
Fudging facts is not something unique to the bourgeoisie. Some months ago a leaflet was printed as part of the campaign seeking the release of Binayak Sen, who is imprisoned for allegedly providing logistical support to the Maoists. His crime was that as a human rights activist he helped an ailing, old Maoist leader, Narayan Sanyal. But does Sen support violent means in the name of the ‘people’? He has categorically said several times that killings cannot be condoned, whatever the justification. This statement, explicitly mentioned in the leaflet, was deleted by one of the campaign members who thought it an unnecessary detail. That the deletion of this sentence was a conscious act of political editing was proven when it was justified with this question: “By writing such sentences, are we not trying to distance ourselves from certain forms of struggle which could be violent?” The person responsible for this editing forgot that he was censoring a fact very crucial to Sen’s case, a fact about Sen’s political stand. He was, instead, imposing his own political stand on the campaign and on Sen, who is contesting the false charge by the State that he subscribes to a violent political ideology. Incidentally, the Maoists have not thought it necessary to contradict the false claim by the State that Sen is part of their organisational structure. Are they relishing this expansion of their zone of influence?
‘Murder and violence are arguments of despotism. To kill a man can never mean killing an idea’, wrote Gorky
Whenever there are attempts by civil society or rights’ groups to question ‘revolutionary violence’, there are counter attempts to abort them. We have heard arguments like: Is it necessary to give so much importance to such sporadic acts? By doing so, would we not be diverting the attention from the regular acts of State violence? Do we not realise that we would be falling in the trap of the State, which, through a complicit media is trying to magnify this violence? Strangely, these arguments have been employed by all apologists of violence. The State says that cases of violation of human rights are negligible. The CPI(M) claims its violence was restricted to very small areas of Nandigram. The RSS and BJP plead that criticism against them was disproportionate to the 2002 massacre, which was limited to very small pockets of Gujarat.
We are seeing a dangerous trend of civil society turning a blind eye to violence inflicted by revolutionary groups. More than 90 years ago, there were writers like Gorky who, condemning the summary trials and killings in the name of revolution, pleaded, “Murder and violence are the arguments of despotism, they are base arguments and they are powerless, for to violate somebody else’s will or to kill a man can never mean killing an idea…” One should conclude by repeating the question he put forth to his countrymen, or perhaps all of us: “The most dreadful enemy of freedom and justice is our stupidity, our cruelty, and all the chaos which has been cultivated in our souls by monarchy’s shameless oppression, by its cynical cruelty. Are we capable of understanding this?”
WRITER’S EMAIL
apoorvanand@kafila.org
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 19, Dated May 16, 2009
Related posts
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
wow. ..fantastic.
The acts of violence I am afraid are not committed only by the “revolutionary ” groups. We see almost on a daily basis, the violence engendered by the political parties on each other and on the general public as well to create an atmosphere of violence wherein they will reign supreme and where their sway will hold good!
An excellent article which raises an important question. Violence may have to be used against violence if in spite of people’s support you are not allowed to function,but it cannot be turned into a fetish and used for its own sake. If we fight against the suppression of democratic rights, we have to uphold them, too. Suppression of dissent leads to oppression by the ruling clique and erosion of people’s support.
An excellent article which raises an important question. Violence may have to be used against violence if in spite of people’s support you are not allowed to function,but it cannot be turned into a fetish and used for its own sake. If we fight against the suppression of democratic rights, we have to uphold them, too. Suppression of dissent leads to oppression by the ruling clique and erosion of people’s support. Had Lenin not summarily rejected Gorky’s opinion as ‘a sum of sick impressions, leading you to sick conclusion’, the Soviet Union might have been still there.
W ho is more dagerous?
Between the serpent (naxal) and the devil (state):
the dilemmas of middle-roaders
Another article by a votary of the “civil-society” cause (politically, it seems, those who wants to keep an equidistant from both the state and the revolutionaries) that critiques the revolutionaries for their total lack of sensitivity about loss of human lives during their recent election-boycott campaigns. The screaming headline sets the tone “The Serpent We Forgive and Forget” that somewhat warns of a nothing-less- than impending catastrophe if “civil society” (which class?) remained silent to Maoist’s depredations. Even as the article raises some pertinent questions about aspect of the people’s war resulting in bloodshed and the corresponding response of the elitist state towards it, it directs its barrage of criticism on the Maoist for being the cause of violence which the article believes is random and arbitrary in nature. Towards the end, he critiques the Bolshevik leadership for espousing violence during the revolutionary construction of the first ever worker’s state. It seems it is the fundamental flaw with the communist movement for letting the seeds of violence to grow into a tree. The article implores the dangerous silence of “civil society” towards revolutionary violence and highlights instances that clearly seems to “repudiate” its claim to be revolutionary since its dangerous and directionless. In that it mirrors the state itself (perhaps like the LTTE). Though, interestingly, the article still calls the Maoists as revolutionaries but if Maoists are called revolutionaries then their violence has to be just and legitimate otherwise they cease to be revolutionary. Addressing Maoists as revolutionaries is clearly an attempt to distance oneself from taking the stand point similar to that of the state- that call Maoist’s as Bandit or what not. But if violence is itself dehumanizing can their upholders be revolutionary seems to be question. The article castigates the human rights bodies and concerned citizens for their apparent silence over the acts of brazen violence committed by Maoists. Why such double standards? The writer bemoans. This is the type of regular canard that the state and their apologists hurl on human rights activists. But the definitely the writer seems to be speaking on behalf of “civil society” members he can’t be taken as state’s apologist. But presented in today’s context isn’t it somewhat erringly similar to what Arun Jaitely of BJP says; “Human rights bodies are the overground face of militants”.. For the specter of Maoist violence is so great that he calls it the “serpent” that cannot be ignored. So only way left is to crush the serpent before it bites.
The fundamental question is how can we place the violence in the context of neo-liberal onslaught on the Indian masses? Of course there have been serious mistakes committed by the revolutionaries in the course of armed class struggle and many times it has been duly acknowledged by the movement itself. This, at least, at the highest level it offers self-criticism and opens itself for criticism. For example, the Maoist spokesperson, Azad denied in the interview to the TOI that they have ever killed or cut the fingers of those who voted in the elections. This he claims is the “state propaganda”. Human rights activists like K Balagopal have long critiqued the PWG for targeting elected representatives beside other things. One has to see case by case. The fundamental question is does the writer critique the tactics of violence or the overall strategy of taking recourse to violence for attaining a definite political objective. It is not clear. The Maoists claims that they follow the ethics of war by not targeting innocents, women and children. But in the theatre of class struggle often it is difficult to tell who “innocents” are and who are not. In the war zone area anyone who works or colludes with the state and its machinery becomes the representative of the state.. They could be attacked for holding such an affiliation or even be warned. It’s not just a question of whether it is morally right or wrong, it’s in the nature of war (and its often bloody)-a quest for establishing the supremacy of the representatives of one class forces over another. In principle the movement does not seem to believe in individual terrorism (yes, it has committed isolated acts of individual terrorism but it has not become a generalized phenomenon) but yes, it has also galvanized hundreds of masses in the name of “revolutionary expedition“, (one may call it mass “terrorism”, if one please) to attack state and its institutions. It is the duty of progressive’s forces to point out the mistakes committed by the movement and critique it wherever it occurs. But one must also remember no revolutionary class-struggle, as grim and violent as being witnessed in remote pockets of India, cannot fool-proof itself from not making any civilian causalities. And if one highlights only the “horrors” of guerilla violence not its revolutionary “achievements”, it becomes a part in the arsenal of the anti-Maoists propaganda ending up serving the state. There are some who says that the human rights of landlords and peasants are equally sacred. They are indivisible. . In this regard Maoists are the worst human violators because clearly their target is the (big) landlord class. They make no bones about it. In the “war zone” however they attack any election officials who are accompanied by the state armed forces. It’s part of their political campaign. There are other “problems” however pertaining to over-reliance on the military line (resolving the contradictions among the people in a violent manner) and total lack of faith in civil and political institutions (that includes taking the tactics of election boycott to the level of strategy). In this regard there has occurred serious polemics between various M-L parties on the nature of violence vis-à-vis practice of mass-line. Will the movement able to correct their line only time will tell? While there could be differences of opinions about some of their tactics but in a fundamental sense the overall direction of the movement and its avowed goal is revolutionary. It is all together a different matter if one believes that violence is totally wrong. The non-violent proponents (and many who articulate strategies of conflict-resolution including post-Marxists) often equate the violence of the oppressor with violence of the oppressed as the one and the same (and thus ending up criminalizing the oppressed). Today when every dissenting space is being criminalized (Binayak Sen’s case is an important example) then how state will going to respond towards those who are fighting for the fundamental changes in society. In other words, for a communistic revolution.
When the state bans even fledging legal, non-violent pro-Maoist mass-organizations and locks its activists in jail for waging a war against the state it drives its cadres underground. What are the options left for them? Here the real nature of the working of democracy gets exposed.. The state knows the fact that it is the Maoists who are consistently and valiantly fighting against its anti-people policies and have been phenomenally successful in organizing the most oppressed section of our society. It must be remembered that 2000 revolutionaries have been killed by the state while they were fighting on behalf of the oppressed class. It is this specter of bloody revolution that forces the state to spend crores of rupees to fight this menace. For the state that believes only in the military solution to the question of naxalism what will be the nature of resistance? Isn’t it is up to the struggling masses to decide.
Dear Apoorvanand,
You have raised an important issue. The scourge of mindless political violence has not received the attention it deserves. Though I may not necessarily agree with all that you have stated in your article, I fully support the intent and purpose of the article.
Regards,
JP
excellent piece
This article has raised some important questions. Sandy’s critical piece upholds the inevitability of violence in a class struggle situation.
While there could be very many perspectives on violence even from the vantage point of communist revolutionary struggles, my response is to emphasize the fact that we can never lose sight of the structural dimensions that generate violence within society. The point of view presented in the aritcle is important; we have to respect the views of a large section of civil society which feels that violence is not a solution; respect non-violence as a political solution to many problems. Regardless of all these, we have to acknowlege the fact that it is structural inequality, injustice and extreme violence perpetrated by the dominant castes and classes which also control the state that generate reactionary violence (sporadic or organized) from various quarters.
This argument of the ‘fundamental cause’ is now seen as unacceptable in the counter-terror / insurgency lexicon; there are only militaristic and hot pursuit based solutions that are being offered to this ‘menace’ of Maoist insurgency. The establishment never learns from history; no such insurgency could ever be decimated through brute force. State uses more and more violence, suspends fundamental freedoms and uses draconian laws ostensibly for national security. And the violence of the revolutionary struggles also correspondingly gets brutalized. This is a vicious circle too familiar to all of us.
So while we condemn the violence of the revolutionaries, let us not at all be apologetic in being vigilant of state excesses against the revolutionaries; under no circumstances may the state be permitted to use unconstitutional, brutal and draconian violence, whatever be the compulsion. The fundamental cause of violence is still fully relevant and we should, as civil society advocate ,measures which address the crippling structural injustice and state violence which brutalizes the victims into reactionary violence. It is also high time that we learnt that it is important to start talks with the revolutionaries right from the beginning and not after positions have been hardened, and innocent lives lost.
bravo appoorvanand for speaking out ! anand
really thought provoking and very true.
Dear Apoorvanand,
I was in any case remembering you and wanting to get in touch as we come
closer to the second anniversary. This is an important article and needed to
be written.Badhaai.
Ilina
This issue is absolutely crucial, and I am so glad Apoorvanand has written about it. When I met Pranhita, I told her that failure by the campaign (up to that point) to say absolutely clearly that Binayak condemned violence in no uncertain terms was undermining his case. The revelation that a sentence to this effect was deleted from a statement is shocking, and shows hypocrisy on the part of some of those supposedly campaigning for him. His non-violent stance needs to be highlighted in all publicity – otherwise the full enormity of his incarceration is not obvious. I am in London at the moment, and will attend the demo at the High Commission here on the 14th. Fingers crossed that he will be allowed to go to Vellore!
With love and solidarity,
Rohini
These wide sweeping pronouncements on Non violence are sanctimonius, ahistorical and even cagey. Look what happens when Maoists in Nepal uphold constitutional democracy–a soft coup is staged against them by the cockroaches of “non-violence” who rely on India’s expansionist plans, who rely on doublespeak, who rely on sanctimonious lecturing and finally who take the help of right wing militarists from a gurkha-colonial era.. to overturn a popularly elected government. The same story with Hizbullah, Hamas. When they get elected in large numbers, it is no longer democracy!!! and like the Israelis, the only terms of reference become suicide bombings, bus bombings etc. No one wants violence, and especially– it is silly to engage in poll violence, even if you want to boycott it. But to sound high and mighty, especially you folks who did not see the ravages against naxalites in the 70s is in poor taste. You simply discount the violence of poverty, deprivation, mysogyny, caste and the violence of the system . See the link below.
http://links.org.au/node/1041
The reference to Nepal is somewhat deceptive.
There is no “coup” in Nepal. none, “soft” or “hard”.
The marching order issued to an Army Chief by the “elected” Prime Minister, whose major coalition partners deserted on that very issue, apparently stripping him of majority support in the parliament, was overridden by the “elected” President.
The PM resigned, on his own, to trigger mass protests.
Street protests were/are organised. Impressive ones. But no comparison with the Janandolan II, just over three years back.
The PM, most importantly is still operating as the caretaker PM. And bidding to get back as the regular PM making use of that vantage position.
So no coup, “soft” or “hard”
As regards democracy, the “majority rule” as opposed to entrenched “minority” rule is a very vital element. But that’s not, repeat not, the only one.
“Democracy” also means certain set of values: scope for freely airing and organising substantive “dissent” and special protection for vulnerable “minorities”. (Even women would/should count as “minorities”, in so far as they are vulnerable.)
Hitler came to power through democratic election. At one point perhaps polled 98%. Eventually got deposed through the actions of external forces.
On Indian expansionism in Nepal:
Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal who resigned earlier this month
lambasting, among other things, foreign (Indian) intervention in Nepali
affairs, had himself asked for the higher level involvement from Delhi in
matters related to the sacking of chief of the Nepali Army (which is
entirely an internal matter of Nepal). Dahal made that clear in an interview
given to the Indian daily *The Hindu* yesterday and published today. Dahal
(aka Prachanda) told *Siddharth Varadarajan* of The Hindu:
“Well, we expected that India would take a consistent position in favour of
civilian supremacy because of its own traditions and because it had
supported the struggle for democracy here. *In fact, I want to make it clear
that before taking any action against Katawal, I told the Indian Ambassador,
Rakesh Sood, that if it is possible, could you please send a message that I
want to have a serious discussion on this issue and if either the foreign
secretary or some other senior person can come here to talk.* We knew some
confusion is there between the Maoist-led government and India on this
question. I wanted to settle this issue through interaction and discussion
with high-level officials from Delhi. *But unfortunately, the ambassador
informed me that this cannot happen now because the election campaign is
going on, that nobody is there, that it is very difficult.*
[The interview is at .
It is interesting to note how one form of Indian intervention would be
welcome or even actively sought and other forms, even non-intervention,
would/could be branded “anti-democratic”/”expansionist”/”imperialist” etc.
On the substantive issue:
I’d argue that things are a bit more complex.
We’re dealing with two distinctly different even if empathetic (or even overlapping) entities: radical Left and human rights movement.
Human rights movement is, by definition, engaged with defending (quite often, though not necessarily, individual) human rights of citizens (in a broader sense, not in the strict legal sense).
State is by far the largest armed body claiming monopoly rights over use of coercive measures, albeit as per set norms or, in other words, “due process of law”.
However, by virtue of nearly monoplolising the coercive means, the state is historically found to be the greatest violator.
So, quite legitimately, state is the focus of attention of the human rights groups. As it should be.
But, in the real world, the state is not the only one having control over armed power. Both pro and anti non-state players also enjoy such powers, in a more limited way though – usually.
They also quite often are oblivious to “collateral damages”, when the conflict is between two armed entities. And, quite often, the armed entity assaults unarmed bodies of people.
In both the cases, the human rights organisations are duty bound to raise their voice in protest.Regardless of the colour of armed violence against unarmed people.
When it is between two armed entities, things are different. Only some cases would call for interventions.
As far as the (radical) Left is concerned, things are a bit different.
They are committed to change the obtaining order. For a better and more just, equitable and freer society.
And in real life the (attempted) journey can hardly ever follow the path straight and narrow.
Here the issue of “end” and “means” comes into the picture in a very big way.
And this is the starting point of wide divergences.
One (representative) position could be that the “end” can hardly be divorced from the “means”. In fact, the “end” willy nilly goes on getting shaped by the “means” adopted. The “means” has its own (semi)autonomous dynamic.
So the “means” is important.
To take a crude and simplistic example, in order to hit back against gangrape by one group perpetrated on another, a Leftist must not think of or in any way encourage paying back in the same coin, so to say. That’s a strict No-No.
The other position is well-known: The “end” justifies” the “means”.
In fact the Right also liberally makes use of this argument. The term “collateral damage” is just a by-product.
Given the fact that, on the one hand, the straight and narrow can hardly be followed and, on the other, any any level of monstrosity can be justified in the name of “the end justifies” the means” – particularly when the “end” is nowhere within sight for perfectly understandable reasons; it’s a real challenge to find and stick to the ethical mean and “means” commensurate, but not necessarily in a straightline alignment, with the “end”.
And it takes real moral courage to denounce (otherwise deplorable) “means” adopted in the name of the loftiest “end”.