"Radicalisation" or "Suicidisation"!? Seven month long massive resistance struggle crumbled in less than seven days.
What obscene stupidity packaged as radicalism! For a detailed account, look up 'A Brief Note on Lalgarh (West Bengal, India) and Implications of Maoist Role' at: http://www.marxmail.org/msg64354.html <http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=228416645436>Also: thefishpond.in/ *satya*/2009/*manmohan*-and-the-*maoists*/ Sukla On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Anivar Aravind <[email protected]>wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: sandy bajeli <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:48:12 +0530 > Subject: Lalgarh and the Radicalisation of Resistance: From 'Ordinary > Civilians' to Political Subjects? > To: Free Binayak Sen <[email protected]> > > Lalgarh and the Radicalisation of Resistance: From 'Ordinary Civilians' to > Political Subjects? > by Saroj Giri > > One image stands out from the Lalgarh resistance. Chattradhar Mahato, the > most visible leader of the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities > (PCAPA), distributing food to ordinary villagers -- not as a high-up leader > doing charity but as one among them. Is this the 'new' image of the > Maoist? But maybe Mahato is not a Maoist -- he himself denies being one. > But if he is not, given his power and influence in the area, the > 'dictatorial' Maoists must have eliminated him by now? Then maybe he is > only being used by them, following their 'diktat' out of fear. But a man > with the kind of popularity and love from the masses would fear the > Maoists? So, is he a Maoist, or *like a* Maoist, after all? But a Maoist > who is this popular among the masses and who does not seem to terrorise > them? > > These questions are tricky, almost baffling to many. For the resistance in > Lalgarh is a unique experiment, not following any formulaic path or given > script. The Lalgarh resistance not only rattled local power relations and > state forces but also challenged accepted ideas and practices of resistance > movements, their internal constitution, and above all opened up radical > possibilities for the initiative of the masses -- partly symbolized in the > unscripted image and contested political identity of Mahato and indeed of > the PCAPA vis-à-vis Maoists. Crucially, Lalgarh undermines conventional > ideas about the relationship between 'peaceful' and 'violent' forms of > struggle and inaugurates possibilities of resistance unfettered by given > notions of political subjectivity or by subservience to the 'rule of law'. > > Lalgarh defied the long-standing shackles on social movements in the > country > that would ultimately restrict their forms of struggle within the confines > given by the lines of command emanating from the Indian state's monopoly > over violence. Lalgarh showed that, when the democratic struggle of the > masses runs into conflict with the repressive apparatus of the state which > has lost all democratic legitimacy, the struggle assumes the form of a > violent mass movement. This violent action, being the expression of > heightened mass democratic struggle, bringing down structures that anyway > have lost all basis, is in every sense a political struggle, an armed > struggle if you like, but has nothing to do with a so-called 'conflict > situation' where ordinary civilians are shown as only trapped and > suffering. > > Take the violent > Dharampur< > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/4-killed-9-missing-in-Lalgarh-turf-battle/articleshow/4656772.cms > >mass > action of June 19, an event many on the left and right decried as a > Maoist take-over and an end to the democratic struggle. When this action > triggered an offensive by security forces to 'reclaim' the area, did the > situation turn into a conflict zone between the state and the armed > Maoists, > with 'ordinary civilians' trapped and waiting for outside aid? This then > is > the crucial point: Lalgarh refused to lend itself to the usual narrative > which presents every armed struggle into a depoliticized 'conflict > situation' with images of suffering women and children waiting for the > international community and NGO aid workers to come and save them. > > The image of the 'ordinary civilian' here was not one of 'refusing to take > sides' and rushing to grab the first bit of relief supplies, but one > exemplified by someone like Malati. Clearly showing where her political > sympathies lay, Malati stayed on in the PCAPA-run camp and refused the > administration's medical help as she gave birth to a baby -- the ambulance > waiting for her went back empty (*The Statesman*, Kolkata, June 30, 2009). > Malati's 'humanitarian needs' were fulfilled by the very struggle which > carried out the 'violent mass action' -- no space for NGOs and the > welfarist > state, exemplifying the autonomous character of the resistance. What > happened was not just that 'ordinary civilians' and adivasis supported the > Maoists; the very image of a Maoist underwent a change so that anybody, > including women and children, could be a Maoist. > > *'Ordinary Civilians', Maoists* > > The question then: do ordinary civilians stand opposed to and separate from > the Maoists? This point becomes pertinent from another angle. Large > sections of democratic forces in the country opposing the security-centric > solution to the upsurge in Lalgarh proclaim the need to always separate the > ordinary villagers/adivasis from the Maoists. The chief minister, > Buddhadev > Bhattacharya, is attacked for conflating the two and using the 'bogey of > Maoists' to victimize ordinary civilians and crush the democratic struggle > of the masses. > > Lalgarh thus throws several questions: Is the tribal morphing into the > Maoist? Is the groundswell of support for the Maoists such that the > adivasis will mostly be Maoists? In today's situation, is it possible to > be > other than Maoist and still assert the kind of political resistance and > autonomy that the masses of Lalgarh are presenting today? > > The question really is: where and how does the adivasi in resistance stand > vis-à-vis the Maoist? What if the separation of the two is integral to the > present statist approach to the Maoists, so central to it that it has to be > invented and enforced where one does not exist? Then, the democratic > rights > approach calling on the state to make this separation, and spare 'innocent > civilians', may be a dangerous double-edged sword. > > *Now what Lalgarh showed is that separating the adivasis from Maoists is no > great democratic act, but is in fact what allows the state to undertake > severe repression and at the same time claim that it acted in the interests > of ordinary civilians.* Thus where this separation cannot be made, the > state in fact invents it. This was clear from the responses of state > officials. When the West Bengal home secretary Ardhendu Sen admitted that > "it is tough to distinguish between the PCAPA and the Maoists", it was > clear > that the separation does not hold (*The Statesman*, Kolkata, 19 June 2009). > And yet, even though ordinary people cannot be separated from Maoists, the > State chief secretary invented this separation, when he stated, in the same > news report, that security forces would "ensure security for ordinary > people". Further, "he stated that common villagers are not involved > directly involved with the violence but they are the victims of the violent > activities of the Maoists". > > There were reports of the "Maoists support base in women and children" > (*The > Statesman*, 28 June 2009). This support base meant that state officials > could hardly find locals for gathering crucial intelligence inputs about > the > Maoists after the CPIM network collapsed; a senior state officer was quoted > stating that "unless we have local sources, it is going to be extremely > difficult to identify the Maoists, who have mingled with the villagers. > Although these (new) men are from Lalgarh, we haven't got people from the > core area. Those villages are still out of bounds"(*The Telegraph*, Friday > June 26, 2009). > > In this light, as in the case of Malati, it is not really the armed Maoist > who is most dangerous in Lalgarh; it is the 'ordinary civilian', the PCAPA > supporter who is indistinguishable form the Maoist supporter. Is Malati a > Maoist? If she refuses health care offered during her most vulnerable > moment, then what is the state supposed to do to win back her support? If > 'ordinary civilians' do not want to get out of the 'conflict situation', > and > want to take sides, maybe not in any dramatic manner but at least by > wanting > to err on the side of the 'violent Maoists', then the task of separating > the > Maoists from the civilians becomes tough -- and in fact politically > reactionary. > > What the state realized in Lalgarh was that if anyone can be a Maoist, and > if the separation does not hold, then the way to go, under a democracy, is > to technically enforce a 'separation'. A technical solution: reports tell > us that the security forces in parts of Lalgarh would sprinkle a special > kind of an imported dye from a helicopter in areas where Maoists are > present. This dye makes a mark on the skin which stays for almost a year. > Well, now you can clearly separate Maoists from the 'ordinary civilians'! > > Inventing and enforcing a separation therefore allows the state to repress > a > popular movement in the name of winning over or defending ordinary > civilians. This enforced separation is such that even when the adivasi in > Lalgarh stands with the Maoist or is a Maoist it is regarded not as the * > condition* of the adivasi in the given conjuncture, as part of what it > means > to be an adivasi, his *being* or life, but negatively understood as the > fallout of government policies. Thus an adivasi Maoist is treated as just > waiting to be rescued or won back into the democratic mainstream by benign > policies and favours. > > *Images of Adivasi and Forms of Struggle* > > Now the Maoist cadre can and must be distinguished from the 'ordinary > villager' or adivasi. However some quarters are not just making this > distinction but heavily invested in proactively separating the two -- > trying > to understand Lalgarh through it. This is happening since this separation > is sustained by at least two other long established images of the 'ordinary > villager' and in particular of the adivasi. > > In one case, this separation is sustained by presenting a now familiar > image > of the ordinary villager or adivasi as the victim, the displaced, a > negative > fallout of the Nehruvian belief in science and industrial development. In > the second case, there is the image of the adivasi resisting 'modern > development and industrialisation' and engaging in democratic forms of > struggle, engaging in non-hierarchical and autonomous welfarist activities > outside the state and statist logic. > > The first image informs some 'pro-poor', welfare policies of the state, for > the 'upliftment of tribals and displaced', the kinds declared in > rehabilitation packages or 'poverty alleviation' programmes. The second > one > comes from the dissident, anti-state left where being the marginalized and > the subaltern ('outside' of modernity and capital) in itself is supposed to > form the basis of 'political' struggle. These two images, often running > counter to each other, however start converging as they get invested in and > start deriving their rationale and intensity from their ability to > ideologically pit the benign, democracy-loving 'ordinary villager' or > adivasi against the supposed violence, top-down terror methods and > repressive character of the Maoists. > > However the events in Lalgarh have shown that this separation pushes back > the 'ordinary villagers' into political infancy, not allowing them to break > with the statist logic and the morass of parliamentary democracy. For once > the 'ordinary villagers' or adivasis break with being mere victims and act > autonomously as political subjects, they very soon come into conflict with > the logic of not just the state but also of oppressive power relations more > generally. Deep-rooted power structures that have found their expression > in > the abstraction called the state do not fade away progressively through > democratic practice and rational deliberation; they exist with a necessity, > a knotted base which cannot be untangled unproblematically, without a > rupture. > > Dharampur marked this rupture where the use of force bringing down the now > decrepit power structures was anticipated by the democratic struggle and > marked its intensification and qualitative expansion. From the perspective > of the longer struggle, the use of violence at this stage is only a gentle > push to bring down terribly weakened but knotty oppressive structure -- a > push to eliminate the now even more intolerable limits imposed on the > democratic practices of the masses. The mass violence at Dharampur was > such > an intensification of the autonomous practices of the Lalgarh adivasis. > This 'ordinary villager' or adivasi who refuses to limit his democratic > practices and struggle within the lines of command given by the state and > its oppressive relations, at this point, emerges as the Maoist. *In the > given conjuncture, the 'Maoist' is the articulation of the ordinary > villager > or adivasi as the political subject.* > > What Lalgarh showed is the interplay and interrelation between the > 'peaceful' and 'violent' methods of struggle. This means that it is not > possible to separate the democratic struggle from the Maoist moment in it. > However the state as the defender of oppressive relations in its most > generalized form, isolates the violent methods of the Maoists and tries to > show it in isolation from the larger struggle of the people against > oppression. In a bid to force 'ordinary villagers' to restrict their > democratic struggle and practices within the limits set by the state and > its > agencies, by the limits of parliamentary democracy, the state wants to > target Maoists. This is where the state and, perhaps not surprisingly, the > democratic rights activists make the separation between ordinary villagers > waiting to be uplifted and the violent Maoists exploiting their plight. > > *It is against such deft ideological operations that it needs to be pointed > out that the 'violent Maoist' is actually an emergent quality of the > democratic struggle and autonomous political practices of the 'ordinary > villager' or adivasi in Lalgarh.* For, the moment you separate the two, > you > are back to enclave democracy, NGOisation. It is here that we have to ask > what it means to oppose the state for using the 'bogey of Maoists' in order > to kill and repress ordinary villagers and ordinary civilians. Now, the > state does not always kill civilians; nor does it right away go after > anyone > who calls himself a Maoist (didn't the Bengal government arrest Gour > Chakraborty1 <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/giri090709.html#_edn1> only > at > an opportune time?). The state invariably kills, as we see in Lalgarh, > when > civilians, ordinary villagers, adivasis, enter into a symbiotic > relationship > with the Maoists; or when the Maoists enter into such a relationship with > ordinary villagers. *That is, 'ordinary villagers' now are no ordinary > villagers engaged in 'participatory democracy' or 'rural empowerment' but > are challenging the very framework given by the state as the generalized > expression of power relations*; similarly the Maoists are not a small band > of abstract believers in violence roaming the countryside recruiting > children and poverty-stricken tribals for a Cause but are now engaged in a > real struggle on the side of the masses. > > Therefore the state does not really kill ordinary villagers in the name of > killing Maoists; it kills those who are 'supporters' of the Maoists, those > who are part of the larger, longer struggle which at some point or other > assumes the name of Maoist. *To be sure there are armed Maoist combatants > and unarmed civilians and one needs to differentiate the two*. However if > the democratic struggle and the 'violent' struggle so often get intertwined > and intersperse each other, if the Maoist moment is an integral moment of > the overall struggle, then unarmed civilians are an integral part of the > Maoist movement. > > To say that the Maoist is the name for the articulation of the ordinary > villager/adivasi as a political subject is to say that autonomous > democratic > practices do not close shop once the repressive state moves in, the form of > struggle often alternates between 'peaceful' and 'violent' ones, and armed > revolutionaries as much as unarmed civilians form part of the struggle. > Thus the resistance in Lalgarh was such that it was extremely difficult to > sustain the separation between the Maoists and the adivasi population. > > *Benign Government* > > Even as there is mounting evidence that ordinary adivasis are part of > Maoist > politics in the area, the government today is forced to somehow act as > though the adivasis are waiting to be won over through the right > development > policies, employment opportunities. First security forces were sent in to > flush out Maoists. With hardly any encounters with the Maoists, the armed > forces basically marched endlessly from one village to the next, across > empty fields and villages whose male members had mostly fled. It is > anybody's guess where the male members had escaped to! After the 'success' > of this 'flushing out' operation, sincere attempts are being made to reach > out to the people there with all kinds of development plans, employment > generation, food and medical provisions. Under express directions form the > chief minister, the secretaries from different ministers are posted in the > different villages finding out the problems and needs of the people there. > > One should not here doubt the sincerity of the CPIM to really follow the > democratic rights perspective here in separating ordinary villagers and the > Maoists. In fact it declared that it wants to fight the Maoists > politically, grudgingly accepting the centre's ban on the Maoists. So much > so that the state government declared that it does not want to apply the > UAPA, except in rare cases and that too the police will not have the > authority to decide its use which will be decided by the government at the > highest level. > > Now all these welfarist proposals derive their rationale from the belief > that ordinary villagers/adivasis stand opposed to the Maoists or got > temporarily duped into supporting Maoists. However in a total reversal of > this separation theory, in Lalgarh ordinary villagers not only rejected the > welfarist state but upheld the Maoists precisely in their supposed violent > avatar. > > That is, while, on the one hand, you had the case of Malati rejecting the > most benign offer the state can ever make, the 0ffer of medical care to the > mother and new-born baby, on the other hand, you had 'ordinary civilians' > cheering and celebrating (ululate) the mass action at Dharampur, destroying > the house of the CPIM leader Anuj Pandey. Where does one draw the line > between ordinary villagers and 'violent Maoists' when women who reject > welfare measures offered by the state are more than participative in > violent > programmes of the Maoists? The *Hindustan Times* reports from Dharampur, > "A > huge crowd gathered below in the area now under Section 144 lustily > cheering > each blow that fell on the white two-story house, quite out of place in > this > land of deprivation under Lalgarh police station. By sundown, the hammers > had chopped off the first floor, leaving behind a skeleton of what was a > 'posh' house in the morning" (*Hindustan Times*, 16 June 2009). > > *Conclusion* > > Thus the approach of trying to defend the human rights of 'ordinary > civilians' by arguing that they are not with the Maoists allows the state > to > justify repression of the Maoists in the name of defending the rights of > these civilians. Far from this separation being something which the state > must be forced to adopt, the state in fact was seen in Lalgarh to enforce > it. Lalgarh showed that when the 'ordinary civilians' rejected the state > even at its welfarist best and made it difficult to separate them from the > Maoists, the state was forced to invent a technical separation (a > particular > dye mark on the body identifying a Maoist). This however did not work. > > Those on the left who support the democratic struggle in Lalgarh but > deplore > its supposed Maoist takeover, too, vociferously uphold this separation. > What this separation does is prevent the interplay between different forms > of struggle, 'peaceful' and 'violent', and constrict it within the limits > set by the decrepit structures of state power. In the name of defending > the > democratic struggle from the authoritarian Maoists, it actually precludes > the autonomous emergence of this struggle, a full-fledged political > struggle > against and beyond the limits set by state power. > > Lalgarh showed that the Maoist is the name for the articulation of the > democratic struggle which now refuses to give up even when it comes face to > the face with the state exercising its monopoly of violence. Opening a > novel chapter in the interrelationship between the 'Maoist party' and mass > resistance, the Maoist 'take-over' of the 'democratic struggle' was > actually > the latter's articulation beyond the last limits set up by given structures > of power, the refusal of the struggle to recoil and rescind in the face of > this power, refusal to remain merely another enclosure of democracy, the > site of 'primitive accumulation' for capital and its democratic claims. It > is a movement and a resistance where ordinary civilians no longer appear > ordinary, and where the Maoists do not appear crudely vanguardist. Lalgarh > today helps us rethink the entire question of political subjectivity, > party, > and the masses -- but above all of democracy and its concrete realisation > through mass action. > > > > 1 <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/giri090709.html#_ednref1> Gour > Chakraborty, a veteran and widely respected Communist in his early 70s, > had > been a leading figure of the Ganapratirodh Mancha (Democratic Resistance > Front), a coalition of left revolutionary groups in Kolkata. On December > 26, 2008 West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee said that the > government wished to deal with the Lalgarh rebellion "politically." Gour > Chakraborty then announced that he had quit the Democratic Resistance Front > to become the public spokesperson for the Communist Party of India (Maoist) > in West Bengal, offered to meet with the chief minister, and said "we are > giving the CPM a chance to deal with us politically." But despite efforts > from other constituents of the Left Front in West Bengal, the leadership of > the CPM refused to enter into political discussions with Chakraborty. On > June 23, 2009 the West Bengal government arrested Chakraborty, using the > provisions of the draconian anti-terrorism Unlawful Activities Prevention > Act, as he was leaving a talk show on a TV channel. [*ed.*] > ------------------------------ > Saroj Giri is Lecturer in Political Science, University of Delhi > _______________________________________________ > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
