Nowhere Left To Go (1).docx

Nowhere Left to Go Views on the Recent Detainment of Scholars and Activists

-SHALINI SINGH, BMMMC (1st Year)

10/1/2018

Nowhere Left to Go – Views on the Recent Detainment of Scholars and Activists To begin with, the label “urban naxals” in itself is very problematic, and the UPA government has time and again tried to delink its association with this term which was first used by then Home Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde. Urban naxals is a term used to refer to left-leaning academicians, activists, journalists, and people from all walks of life existing in the urban society – a term used to link them to the Maoist activities in Naxalbari, India. The term “Naxalism” originated from the 1967 uprising against the exploitation of poor cultivators by rich and powerful jotedars (landowners) in Naxalbari, West Bengal. Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal led the movement after a poor peasant was beaten up by the jotedars’ men when he attempted to till land. Inspired by Mao, they decided to take up the Chinese path of revolution by arming huge numbers of peasants and seizing land, food, and properties of the jotedars. The movement was neutralized after the government sent in the paramilitary forces. Arrests were made, and lives were lost. Charu Mazumdar went underground. Since then, the Naxalite movement has only grown more violent and has been dealt with in the same manner by the government. In 1971, the Indira Gandhi government went as far as initiating Operation Steeplechase[i], an undocumented operation carried out by the Indian Army under the orders of the government, wherein multiple naxals were killed, and 20,000 suspected to be involved in naxal-related activities were detained. Accounts of the current state of the naxal movement show us the unhappy state of tribals in the Bastar region – a place that is still a stranger to progress and growth due to the strong grasp that violence holds on it. Both ends of the political spectrum claim to be functioning for their betterment and prosperity, but making a choice often proves to be fatal for this group. In his controversial and widely criticized film “Buddha in a Traffic Jam,” Vivek Agnihotri has attempted to depict the adversities faced by the local tribes sandwiched between governmental policies like Salwa Judum, and the growing influence of the naxal movement. The situation proved to be a multi-faceted social and political calamity, with the Supreme Court ruling the unleashing of Salwa Judum or Koya Commandos to be unconstitutional and illegal [ii] – which is only fair since young, uneducated, and possibly polarized men and women were being armed in this fight, leading to massive loss of life and infringement of rights on both ends. Another proof of the unsuccessful advent of Salwa Judum was the murder of one of its key propagators, Mahendra Karma, who was shot and stabbed 78 times[iii] before he bled to death. An eye for an eye only leads to more blindness.[iv]

Coming to the issue of Urban Naxals, they have often been labeled as “intellectual terrorists,” which is proof enough of the might of the pen over the sword. Intellectual terrorism refers to propagating any ideology deviating from the course of the mainstream, or what has been deemed as right by the government and the ruling parties. An influenced mind is not a free mind, which could possibly be the reason behind the amount of flak freethinkers or academicians receive for their ways of thinking and living. But even so, to call them urban naxals would be to discredit the movement. I believe so because of two reasons. One, they do not originate from Naxalbari, and their path of struggle is not through armed rebellion which is rampant in the affected regions. So it would be more appropriate to call them urban Maoists instead of naxals, as they are only preachers of an ideology, and not armed resistors of the establishment. Two, in his book “Towards Naxalbari (1953-1967): An Account of Inner-Party Ideological Struggle,” Pradeep Basu has divided the partakers of the movement into two sections: the actionists and the theorists. The former, in my opinion, is appropriate for usage to refer to Naxals. The latter is what the alleged “urban naxals” might actually be. Romila Thapar, one of the many who have been very vocal regarding the labeling of activists as “urban Naxals,” said that either the government does not understand the meaning of urban naxal or we (the activists) do not understand the term. It’s hard to disagree with her with the Supreme Court refusing to step in, and politicians like Amit Shah using the situation to bash the Opposition by saying that “the government would not tolerate those who speak about dividing the country.” This also strikes up the question of the relationship between the State and its citizens. People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people. [v] With the recent trends in the Indian democracy being lynching, labeling people as anti-nationals, and growing violence and intolerance, the citizens do have their reasons to be afraid of their government. But that is precisely the reason why the State is, and must be afraid of those it is trying so hard to control. A very simple thing is commonly misunderstood today. Nationalism. Due to the interchangeable usage of “nation” and “State,” most people believe that the two terms have the same meaning. They do not. Being anti-State does not make one anti-nation. In fact, being anti-State only implies that you’re participating in keeping alive the very essence of a democracy by keeping a check on the State, its powers, and its restrictive ways. As Mark Twain put it, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” The Indian government has been anything but deserving lately. The police, when booking academicians and activists under the UA (P) Act, said that they found “incriminating documents” at the residences of those in question - these documents being literature written by Marx and Mao. Varavara Rao’s son-in-law’s residence at EFL University, Hyderabad, was raided by the police without prior intimation and information. The latter, a professor at EFLU, was chided by cops for reading Mao and Marx, and having photos of B R Ambedkar instead of gods and goddesses. He was also allegedly treated badly while in detention. This is especially relevant because the State does not get to decide what we read, who we worship, and whose photos we hang on our walls. Among those arrested this year are Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonzalves from

Maharashtra, Sudha Bharadwaj from Haryana, Gautam Navlakha from Delhi, and Varavara Rao from Hyderabad. In the hearing of their case, the Supreme Court said that “dissent is the safety valve of democracy... the pressure cooker will burst if you don’t allow the safety valves,” and ordered for them to be kept on house arrest instead of putting them into the custody of the police. The real question that arises from this, however, is that while the political parties are waging Twitter wars and calling names, and directing rage towards activists by calling them urban naxals, is the rest of the country believing them? Are the citizens so fearful of anything that isn’t the establishment, while still believing that they are woke in their Facebook criticisms of it? Do they see through the façade and realize that the State is growing more and more intolerant of dissent as days pass? Some questions will take their due time to get answered, but in the meantime, #MeTooUrbanNaxali.

[i] Lawoti, Mahendra; Pahari, Anup Kumar (2009). "Part V: Military and state dimension". [ii] Salwa Judum is illegal, says Supreme Court - The Hindu (July 05, 2011) [iii] According to a report by Firstpost.in on May 29, 2013, last accessed on 14.10.18 [iv] Margaret Atwood [v] V for Vendetta, Alan Moore ii

i

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/metoourbannaxal-goes-viral-heres-why/315731 - a hash tag being used by Twitterati to protest against the labeling, and subsequent detainments of “urban naxals”