Quote If the movement were exclusively tribal, it would have been easier to encircle and crush. Unquote
As it appears, let alone be *exclusively tribal*, there is not a single tribal in the top echelon of Maoist leadership - not in the Polit Buro, nor even in the Central Committee. In any case, the doctrine of capturing state power through Protracted People's (Guerrilla) War has nothing to do with tribal woes *per se*. The doctrine, however, pushed the Maoists to the most remote and backward forested and mountainous regions of (eastern and central) India, hence a partial convergence of Maoist insurgency and a section of tribals in these areas. Interestingly, the active opposition to Maoist insurgency in central India comes from the state supported/sponsored *Salwa Judum*, which is also composed of local tribals, the leadership included. Large sections of tribals, even in this area, belong to various other groups or are simply unaffiliated. Even in the larger Lalgarh region - a major hub of Maoist insurgency, the CPIM, the bitter enemy of the Maoists, still retains a large tribal support base. The tribals of other parts of India have nothing to do with Maoist insurgency. Sukla On 16 August 2010 13:43, sandy singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Advertisement > <http://www.hindustantimes.com/> > ' > http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/newdelhi/A-convergence-of-interests/Article1-587339.aspx > > A convergence of interests' > > August 16, 2010 > > Maoists form only the most militant end of a spectrum of tribal > resistance movements, says writer and activist Arundhati Roy. In an emailed > interview with *Sanjib K Baruah*, the Booker Prize-winning author says > non-tribal leaders have helped these movements retain a link with rest of > the country of the country, and "development", as envisaged by the > government, is not the answer to their woes. > > Excerpts: > > *Does India appropriately recognise the traditional rights of the > indigenous people?* > India has behaved with tribal people like a colonial power. It has > disenfranchised them, made them squatters on their own land and criminalised > their way of life. They were criminals by default then. They're terrorists > now. > > *Are we at present seeing a tribal upsurge or a Maoist struggle?* > Both. Tribal resistance in central India predated Mao by centuries. However > today, right now, we are seeing a convergence of interests of Maoist > ideology and tribal resistance. A huge majority, maybe more than 90 per cent > of the Maoist cadre, is made up of tribal people. > > But the Maoists are only one part of the insurrection. They do not > represent all tribals, or all resistance movements. They do not even claim > to. The character of the current rebellion is diverse, not homogeneous. That > diversity is what gives it its strength. > > Unlike the Maoists, I don't think that tribal people are fighting to > overthrow the Indian state. They don't know what the Indian state is. They > are fighting to preserve their homelands, to not be displaced, to not have > their mountains and forests and rivers devastated by "development". > > The Maoist party's goals are different. The tribal areas are where they > hope to consolidate their military strength and launch their revolution. But > though they have different goals, different worldviews, different ideas > about what development means, they all know they are ranged against the same > corporate juggernaut. > > *Is it a contradiction that the Maoist leadership is essentially > non-tribal?* > If the movement were exclusively tribal, it would have been easier to > encircle and crush. It would have been easier to discredit because it would > quickly become an "identity" struggle. > > It is the "non-tribal" Maoists and other activists in the other resistance > movements, as well as other free-floating activists, who keep that link > alive. > > The nature of the leadership may be an issue if the revolution they dream > of actually materialised, and there were very different ideas about what to > do with that victory. But right now, that is in the very very distant > future. > *In the current context, is economic development the problem or the > solution?* > The kind of development (Home Minister) P Chidambaram and (Prime Minister) > Manmohan Singh envisage is most definitely the problem. So when they come up > with the "two-pronged" strategy idea, of "development" and "security", it's > a little like saying we'll use two guns instead of one. There are no weekend > solutions to this insurrecti > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Free Binayak Sen" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<free-binayaksen%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/free-binayaksen?hl=en-GB. > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an 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.
