SETTING
Much has been said about the growth and development of the Maoist upsurge till date. Our libraries do have a fair collection of works dealing with the ideological differences between the Maoists and the State, which keeps the issue burning. As a total neglect of the historical perspective is not recommended in analysing a social issue, I will be tempted to turn your attention to it at times. In the political scene, many of our national leaders including the current prime minister of India has called it has the single biggest internal threat to security and national integration. On the other side, people like Arundhati Roy has been heavily criticised by many of our country’s so-called nationalists for her sympathetic attitude towards Maoists. The Indian state, after years of abysmal neglect and now with its back against the wall, has said that Naxalites are terrorists and must be dealt with as such. Civil rights activists and concerned academics warn that such posturing would amount to a brutal repression of India’s forgotten subaltern voices. As I am not here primarily concerned with the history of the problem, the objective of this assignment will be to constitute a link between the Maoist menace and the concept of humiliation. I do admit that the kind of violence being unleashed by the Maoists cannot be justified in any humanitarian society. But let me ask you, rather myself: ‘What makes them to take up arms?’ Can it be ruled off as something purely ‘incidental’? If the answer is no, then what really constitutes their ‘ideology in real terms’? Here comes into play the context of humiliation. The State has quite often witnessed to be switching over to an escapist mode by blaming the government which preceded it or criticising some of the false conceived development strategy conceived at the initial stages of the post-independent era (like the undue thrust given for industrial expansion which in turn lead to capitalist exploitation of the minorities). Though these are all facts, underlying all these is a not-so-harmonious note of humiliation. The worst part of it all is the fact that even the measures adopted by the government to deal with the Maoist movement are over and above undemocratic. They do nothing but humiliating the already humiliated.
BACKGROUND
In literal terms Maoists means the followers of Mao Zedong, the most popular face of Chinese communist movement that overthrew the monarchy in China a few decades ago. Maoism’s political orientation emphasises the revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures. Ideologically speaking, Maoists in India have a similar motto to defy the democratically elected government and to establish a state based on communist principle, which according to them will ensure equality of masses. Founded on 21st September 2004 through the merger of the People’s War Group [an offshoot of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)] and the Maoist Communist Centre of India, CPI (Maoists) is currently proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the Indian government for organising masses in furtherance of their ideology. Maoists are often referred to as Naxalites in reference to the Naxalbari insurrection conducted by radical Maoists in West Bengal in 1967.This reference makes it pertinent to trace back the origin of the Maoists back to the popular peasant movement in the state of West Bengal during the 1970s, which gradually turned into a violent struggle and spread to almost a third of our country’s geographical area. Maoist movement is often argued as a reactionary rebellion of capitalist exploitation and government apathy. After independence, India’s growth has not been able to alleviate the regional disparities but eventually worsened it. The capitalist oriented industrial economy coupled with the inaccessibility of the hostile topography and lack of political will has left the central part of India far behind its other parts. However many mining industries have tried to make use of its huge reserves of mineral resources. These mining activities have mostly encroached upon the social systems of the original inhabitants. Their lands have been forcefully taken over in exchange of some inadequate compensation. The lifeline of their economic and religious activity, the hilly forested areas, has been torn apart. In addition, various social and economic program of the government fail to reach them due to high level of red tapism, corruption and inefficiency. As a result, the deprived people turn to using force against the state citing the reason of years of injustice and inefficient grievance redress system. With the availability of arms and plenty of landmines mainly used for mining activities in the area, this struggle takes the form of a violent armed revolt. Some also argue it to be a foreign aided internal conflict to destabilize the country. Whatever may be the cause of this movement, it is definitely fuelled by the industrial repression and government inaction. In a situation when the state is busy at formulating the policies favouring the corporates at the cost of livelihood of the poor, there is absolutely no wonder in them taking up the arms. Though their reactions manifest in varied forms, the reason behind the rebellion is simple: the acts of humiliation to which they have been subjected to since long.
WHAT CONSTITUTES HUMILIATION?
It is duty bound with me to define what constitutes humiliation, if I have to take this discussion forward. From a layman point of view, one can be humiliated by words, gestures, actions and even by simple silence. The objects of humiliation can either be groups or individuals. The Nazi treatment of Jews can be aptly quoted as one of the acute instances of this act. Colonised countries were quite often mocked and ridiculed in many a humiliating manner by the colonizers in the past. One thing which has to be kept in mind is the fact that those acts may or may not involve physical assault. It was all the more evident in the concentration camps of the Nazi Germany. However, the modern tendency is towards more of a subtle kind. At times, it is even more harming than the physical ones as humiliation is most effective when it is so deep and pervasive that it is no longer recognised for what it is, but that does not gainsay its realities. Whatever be the nature or situation, there is one thing in common in all instances of humiliation: an assault on the self-respect.
Standing on a natural psychologist’s toe, I believe that every one of us have a certain view of ourselves and we do expect a minimum treatment that is due to us, the denial of which make us feel humiliated. However, the pain and the mental agony which individuals feel at those instances are not narrowly psychological in nature as the majority believes. The pain inflicted upon is moral in nature in the sense that it arises from the violation of what is due to him and diminishes him as a person.
However, an abstract definition is too short to explain the context of humiliation. So it is better to contextualise it from three different perspectives via historical, structural and institutional. From a historical viewpoint, one could easily identify that there was a gradual shift in the manner in which humiliation manifested itself out on the people and the society. But, the point is it is still prevailing either directly or otherwise. It is at this juncture we need to take the other two perspectives into consideration.
Structural Humiliation
It has to be admitted that humiliation cannot be wiped out from a society, where structures that necessitates inequality and subordination exists. Zamindari system could be cited as a typical example of this social structure. To elaborate upon this, let’s look at one of the accounts given by Chitralekha of Tata Institute of Social Sciences in her article titled “Committed, Opportunists and Drifters: Revisiting the Naxalite narrative in Jharkhand and Bihar”. She categorises the Naxalites into three motivational profiles as the title itself suggests. All of those categorised as ‘Committed’ had joined the party between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s. Mostly belonging to the Dalit or backward castes, their narratives carry overriding, vivid memories of Zamindari oppression, a deeply remembered personal experience of social and economic subjugation at the hands of landed, dominant castes in the village.
Anil, for instance, had joined in the first flush of the movement in Gaya in the early 1980s. ‘I was the zamindar’s own man, but he was vicious with others...since I came to my senses this is what I saw...if I am a poor man, you don’t allow me to reap my crops, misbehave with my family, with female members...’ He vividly remembers the day he took part in his first ‘action’ against the archetypal, wicked landlord—a thrilling, heady experience fraught with no unease whatsoever. ‘The landlord was overconfident no one will be able to harm him...because he had humiliated our women, we cut off his penis and put it in his own mouth’.
Pranav Vidyarthi of Jehanabad (Bihar) joined Party Unity after his ‘first murder’ of a Bhoomi Sena (upper caste army) man who had killed his relative. Vidyarthi had been intimately associated with the Naxalite struggle in order to acquire and redistribute gair mazurua (village commons) and ceiling surplus lands in and around his village. He was inAurangabad jail at the time of fieldwork; the years of bloodshed still held for him a core and local agenda, which he recounted fervently ‘gaon banavan jai Jahan sapno me julmi jamindar na rahe/Sabke bharpet mele khana, aur rahe ke thekana Koi koi ke kuboliya bolen har na rahe’ (let us make a village/where even in your dreams there is no cruel landlord/where everyone has enough to eat, and a roof over his head/where no man dare talk down to another man)’.
Institutionalised Humiliation
In the case of institutionalised humiliation, social institutions embody disrespect for and systematically violate the self-respect of individuals or a group. In an unequal society, where some enjoy considerable power over the others, it is bound to happen. However, not all unequal societies involve it because much depends on the nature, extent and basis of inequality. From a theoretical stand point, one can cite societies based on slavery, untouchability, hierarchical status and caste system as typical examples of institutionalised humiliation. In such societies, every social institution including legal ones tend to proclaim the inferiority and marginality of the deprived. Legal institutions deny them basic rights and political institutions suppress their voices by some political gimmicks. Unfortunately, the Indian state is one place, where institutionalised humiliation do exists in a way so subtle that it is hardly noticed. For instance, let’s take the example of Dr.Binayak Sen, the well-known human rights activist and medical practitioner who was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment in charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy. The December 24, 2010 judgement of the Raipur Sessions Court convicted Dr.Binayak Sen, along with the co-accused Piyush Guha, a businessman, and Narayan Sanyal, a Maoist ideologue for their alleged Maoist connection amounting to spreading hatred against the State. According to the judgment, Narayan Sanyal is a member of the politburo of a banned organisation, the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Binayak Sen conspired with him to pass on his letters to his party comrades through Piyush Guha. On the basis of the evidence, which those following the case felt was of a doubtful nature, the judge concluded that all the three were involved in spreading hatred and disrespect and exciting disaffection against the government established by law in India, by circulating naxalite literature and publications promoting terrorist and naxalite activities. It has to be noted that the verdict came from a trial court, which is at the lowest rung of the three-stage judicial hierarchy. Though the higher judiciary annulled the verdict later following heavy outrage from the public, the trial court judgement was ample enough to humiliate the Maoists as the convicted was after all a human rights activist who had spoken for their issues before and the charges levelled against him was mere possession of Naxalite literature. The incident was kind of saying them indirectly that even a person like Binayak Sen won’t be allowed to speak for them in peaceful manner. The monstrous face of State oppression!
Government response to the Maoist movement has been that of double standard. On the one hand, it declares war against its own citizens but on the other it backtracks due to the protests by human right activists across the nation. For instance, an operation named “Operation Greenhunt” has been executed by the paramilitary forces like CRPF and CoBRA, despite the fact that it has met only marginal success. The state of Andhra Pradesh has built a specialised commando force named “Grey Hound” in order to tackle the Maoist menace. But are these internal wars a permanent solution for the issue? My answer will be an emphatic ‘No’. These forms of institutionalised humiliation do nothing more than provoking the marginalised to turn more towards armed and violent revolt. To make it clear, let me turn your attention towards Salwa Judum, a state sponsored military outfit instituted to fight against the Maoists. The usual practise is that Special police Officers (SPO) recruited for Salwa Judum learn guerilla warfare and join the paramilitary forces. It is a fact that the state and the central forces rely on the tribal youth, who are well acquainted with the jungle terrain in their hunt for Naxalites. But this has encouraged the SPOs to indulge in violence and looting. The SPOs were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. However, No details or limitations were provided on the number of SPOs who could be appointed, their qualifications, their training, or their duties. The blatant vagueness of the law stood, as the Court in sharp contrast to the Indian Police Act, 1861, which also provides for SPOs. Despite being a colonial law, beset with its own problems, the Indian Police Act nonetheless contains certain safeguards. It requires, for instance, the appointment of SPOs to receive approval from a magistrate. Youngsters, with poor training, were recruited by the State to engage in dangerous and deadly operations. They lacked both the legal and professional education necessary for their tasks. In about two dozen, hour-long periods of instruction, they were trained in all relevant criminal laws such as the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. Another 12 hours were devoted to the Constitution and human rights.
The only instance of relief is that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Nandini Sundar and others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Union Government indicates that the country’s judicial system is alive, and a citizen can hope for justice from it. In the decision rendered on 5 July 2011, the Supreme Court declared the Chhattisgarh government sponsored Salwa Judum to be unconstitutional. The Court prohibited deploying members of tribal communities as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any counter-insurgency operation by the state against the Naxals or Maoists, or against any extremist leftist groups operating in the state and/or region. But despite all these efforts for reconciliation, the humiliation inflicted upon the tribal poor still remains as a dark chapter in the history of democratic India. It is vividly portrayed in one of the accounts by Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashata titled ‘Terror Force’. It goes like this:
Dornapal has the second largest Salwa Judum camp in the district after Jagargunda. In the mornings it is abuzz with unusual sounds. Gunshots from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp rend the air, the “special police officers” (SPOs) recruited for Salwa Judum practise guerilla warfare, and State police personnel, in their unkempt uniforms, hold a drill. The young SPOs, dwarfed by the guns slung on their shoulders, move around with a self-assurance that is uncommon among the Gondi tribal people of the south Bastar region. While people go about their daily business, the SPOs walk around with their guns as if they are in charge of the security of the village. However, the line between providing security and monitoring is thin in Dornapal. The SPOs point their guns at people even at the slightest sign of defiance.
The sense of fear is the highest in the Konta block, which has the largest number of SPOs. At Dornapal and Jagargunda, people living in camps set up for them as a shelter from Maoist ire, give a grim picture of the evenings. This is the time of day when the SPOs, drunk on power and alcohol, harass them. Tikesh Kosa, who lives in Jagargunda camp, said: “In the mornings, there is fear of the evenings. The drunken SPOs come to our houses, abuse our women, eat our food, and sometimes destroy our belongings without any provocation. In fact, the SPOs want to return to their homes, in areas affected by Maoist activity, and their show of strength, we feel, is a ruse to overcome insecurities and the fear of death.”
A few major incidents of human rights violation in the recent past are worth noting if the impact of creating a force such as Salwa Judum is to be understood. In March, three villages near Chintalnar in Dantewada were allegedly ransacked and burnt by Central forces, assisted by SPOs and Koya commandos (SPOs with some experience, who were inducted into the State Police). These villages are Tarmetla, where 207 homes were burnt; Morpalli, where 35 homes were looted first and then burnt, two women were sexually abused, and one person was killed; and Timapuram, where 75 houses were set on fire. Along with the houses, harvested paddy, which was stored in granaries, was also burnt. All these incidents pertain to nothing but atrocious acts of humiliation. If this is the kind of environment that prevails in the so-called Naxalite affected areas, who is to be blamed for if the posterity also follows the path of violence and bloodshed? Is it just the ‘Koya Commandos’ or the State in general?
CONCLUSION
Unless and until the Indian state stops humiliating the Maoists, the issue is not going to be resolved. Though the verdict indicating Salwa Judum as unconstitutional could be seen as a major leap forward in the process of reconciliation, it is not everything! On a long run, the government must ensure that the poor tribals are not being deprived of the basic amenities of life and equal opportunities. While formulating the policies involving the corporate, the proper rehabilitation of the poor must not lost sight of. Further, the state should not try to suppress the subaltern voices through unconstitutional or ‘distorted constitutional’ methods. To suggest a short term strategy to deal with the issue would be strengthening the existing police and paramilitary forces and giving them the proper guidance and orientation in their operations. At the same time, stringent legislation must be put in practise to ensure that those institutions does not indulge in any kind of acts that amounts to humiliating the marginalised sections like the tribal poor. To cut the long story short, the State should stop engaging in war with its own children!
References
Ø ‘Humiliation: Claims And Context’ Gopal Guru
Ø ‘Committed, Opportunists and Drifters:
Revisiting the Naxalite narrative
in Jharkhand and Bihar’ Chitralekha
Ø ‘Maoists In Andhra Pradesh’ Shantha Sinha
Ø The Hindu
Ø Frontline [Volume 28 - Issue 02 :: Jan. 15-28,
2011]
******
No comments:
Post a Comment