saroj giri's writing is always like that. earlier also,south asian maoist politics and its anti-liberal turn is his core agenda using zizek's arguments.
--- On Fri, 10/7/09, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Sukla Sen <[email protected]> > Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Fwd: Lalgarh and the Radicalisation of Resistance: > From 'Ordinary Civilians' to Political Subjects? > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, 10 July, 2009, 5:04 PM > "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 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Click here http://cricket.yahoo.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
