That the Lalgarh resistance was initiated and propelled by the Maoists is just a myth - in fact, a piece of manufactured lie - dished out by the state, which, however, for obvious reasons perfectly suits the Maoists.
The best known face of the Lagarh resistance is on record having denied that claim. Ref: http://news.rediff.com/interview/2009/jun/22/interview-with-convenor-of-peoples-committee-against-police-atrocities.htm#write And also: http://ishare.rediff.com/video/news-and-politics/chhtradhar-mahato-speaks-on-lalgarh-crisis/636111 Chhatradhar Mahato did it even on earlier occasions. In fact, not too long ago, he was associated with the Trinamool Congress. Very relevant, in this context, is also the fact that when the Maoists were going full blast (rather literally) with their election boycott call, just about two months back, the PCAPA negotiated with the State Election Commission to have polling booths set up just outside the "liberated zone" to ensure voting by the villagers while disallowing the administration to come in till their demands are met. But far more important is that the seven month long resistance crashed almost overnight with the Maoistscoming overground, claiming the authorship of the resistance, proudly declaring that they tried to kill the Chief Minister and would do it again and going on a violent spree including killings. That gave the state the perfect alibi to shed its diffidence of long seven months and breach the resistance. If Nandigarm had immobilised the state, after its brutal actions turned severely counter-productive, Lalgarh, or its latest phase, has helped radically reverse the trend. Any support for Lalgarh resistance, as an integral part of the fight for progressive transformation of the social order, and consequent principled opposition to state oppression coming on top of appalling neglect would overlook this obvious connection only at its own peril. The resistance, which had held for long seven months, collapsed almost overnight, within seven days of the Maoist misventure. That's there for all to see. And here Lalgarh, or its latest phase, so hugely differs from Nandigram. One may also like to look up for an informed analysis: 'CPI(M) vs CPI(M) by Pothik Ghosh at http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=89969bbe-9b93-4dd7-ab0d-139d3af67e6f&Headline=CPI(M)+vs+CPI(M) Ghosh is no run of the mill hack. He is an editor of the website radicalnotes.com Also: http://www.facebook.com/sukla.sen?ref=name#/sukla.sen?v=app_2347471856 And for the CPIM version, 'On the Political Violence Unleashed Against the Left in West Bengal', as endorsed by Irfan Habib et al: http://www.pragoti.org/node/3460 And as regards Maoism of the CPI(Maoist) variety, on a global scale in recent years there were four major hubs of insurgency: Peru, Nepal, Philippines and India. Now they stand wiped out in Peru. In Nepal they have changed track (the CPI(Ma) has strongly resented that) and their position has become uncertain after some striking success. In Philippines, they have apparently suffered decline. In Iidia, it is no accident that they are confined to the most backward hinterlands inhabited by the poorest - and cruelly exploited - of adivasis - the indigenous people. Utter government insensitivity is responsible for that. Usually it is claimed that Maoists have significant presence in one-fourth of India's 600+ districts. But that is highly misleading. Because that doesn't tell us how much of a particular district is under Maoist/insurgent control. Even a corner is affected, the whole district is counted in. Info on what fractions of Indian villages - around 6,40,000, is affected would have been far more insightful. In any case, the whole idea that every fourth district is under insurgent control is hugely out of tune with our real life experiences. It is the adivasi inhabited most backward regions of northern portion of South India - i.e. Andhra Pradesh, parts of eastern India - Orissa, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and parts of central India - Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra, in patches - are affected. One of the most perceptive and sympathetic observer, K Balagopal, had observed that the very success of the Maoists - resulting in improvement in living conditions - has resulted in their decline in AP. It also needs be noted that they have now hardly any presence in towns and cities. So very different from the heady days of late sixties and seventies. The historical decline is all too evidrent. Sukla Sandy B wrote: In the context of the historic struggle in Lalgarh, broadly speaking, four major strand of thinking have emerged: the first taken by the state (including the CPIM) that the movement in Lalgarh is nothing but a Maoist inspired insurrection/misadventure that has to be crushed by the might of the state: second, the middle path taken by liberal/radical/post marxists that seeks to identify the genesis of the movement and the reasons why it has taken such a violent shape. It is also, at the same time, wary of giving its unstinted support because it has got somewhat contaminated with Maoism, a detestable ideology, therefore their expression of "feeble" support to the beleaguered adivasis, who are under attack, comes along with a severe condemnation of Maoists for their infantile, violent misadventure and the futile course of action as taken by the people's committee (duly instigated by violent Maoists) who should have utilized the democratic spaces available along a legalistic, peaceful path (and other "novel" approaches) to resolve their grievances. The third (taken by a certain section of intelligentsia and Liberation group) which even as it critiques the grave miscalculation on the part of the movement (as guided by Maoists) as being too a premature/anarchist and strategically wrong it nonetheless calls it a landmark movement in the annals of indigenous/left movement in the country because it espouses genuine aspirations of the people. It, thus, represents a glorious saga of the united peoples struggles against all forms of oppression and injustice. In that it it celebrates the history making effort and acknowledges it as a glorious battle for dignity and justice. The statement by CPI (ML) Liberation belongs to the third category. The fourth one, as subscribed by the non-parliamentary communist revolutionaries makes no such qualifying remarks for their support to the oppressed and hails the resistance movement and its martyrs. They remain partisan and eternally committed to the peoples causes. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
