Walking with Comrades

Do we really have the freedom of expression in India?

vpsingh said:
Hemant, I may add up another distinguishing feature of a democratic governance i.e. freedom of expression,....
Click to expand...

Hindustan Times editorial :http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PU...he-usual-suspects-15072010010001.shtml?Mode=1

New Delhi, in its fight against Maoism, is mistaking critics of the State for enemies

In every war, the first casualty is often the ability to digest criticism. India's war against the Maoists is no exception. How seriously the government takes this threat can be gauged from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's repeated assertions that Maoist violence is the gravest internal security threat. The Chhattisgarh police, in a press statement, alleged that four activists -all wellknown critics of the State's battle tactics in Maoism's `Ground Zero' -Nandini Sundar, Medha Patkar, Himanshu Kumar and Arundhati Roy have close links with Lingaram Kodopi, who allegedly led the July 6 attack on a local Congress leader in Chhattisgarh. A senior state police official has also warned the four that they could be treated as `co-accused' under the Chhattisgarh Special People's Security Act for “waging war against the State“.


It seems that in its no-holds-barred battle to reoccupy lost land from the Maoists, the government is erasing the line that divides someone waging a `war against the State' and someone who is critical of its policies like the Salwa Judum. Though no case has been filed against the four yet, the State's inability to distinguish between the two is worrying. In a letter to the home minister, historian and anthropologist -not a Maoist sympathiser by any stretch of stretchable imagination -Ramachandra Guha said that such allegations are “not just slanderous and defamatory, but also deeply counter-productive“. He is right. It is clear that there is a trust deficit between the `pro-Maoist' tribals and the government and such allegations without any evidence beyond sharing a `territory' will only exacerbate matters. The police, we have now been told, are investigating the alleged links. So what was the perishing hurry to go public with the allegations when they themselves are unsure about the links?

In a democracy, criticism is a part and parcel of solving any problem and the State has to be seen as an exemplar of fair play. The Maoists don't need to follow the rulebook.
The State, by definition, has to. Many, especially in the frontline of anti-Maoist operations, may find this dichotomy difficult to tackle. But difficulty is not an excuse to throw the rulebook away. For the sake of the State and what it stands for, let the Government of India not make a `if you're not with us you're against us' paradigm that serves against its ideals, and more importantly, against its own operational strategy.
 
Lots of post-the-fact justification for Maoist actions. It is ironical that those arguing for Maoists come up with all sorts of creative arguments obfuscating the clear-cut arguments provided by Maoists themselves. Lots of chit-chat about democracy, freedom of speech and expression, etc. Err, aren't Maoists by definition opposed to all this? Okay, let's briefly examine some recent arguments.

1. Zamindari system, land reforms, etc.: First of all, this is a bit out of context. The current focus of Maoist action is in tribal areas and not peasants. The tribal issues are different from peasant issues. A revolutionary would reach any place, where he can rally the oppressed so that they fight for his cause (and not their own cause). And indeed Maoists have been very active with peasants in the past, starting from Naxalbari and then most recently the MCC in Bihar. But the current action is primarily in tribal areas.

Anyways, as far as land reforms are concerned, there is a lot to be desired. It is a very complex issue and the analysis here is too simplistic. The land reforms can be done in many ways. One version of land reforms which ensures that everyone has equal land, would strip many Jats of their land so that it could be given to landless communities. So yes, Haryana and Punjab were better in the sense that land was not controlled by very few people; but it was still not equally distributed amongst everyone. And the historical context also has to be understood clearly- Bihar, Bengal, UP, MP, etc. were the first regions to come under direct British rule. Who in turn introduced the official zamindari system, giving full control to few individuals, for the ease of their own tax collections. Delhi and surrounding areas were still notionally ruled by their own kings, atleast until 1857. We may have republican traditions, but had the Britishers been ruling these areas directly at the same time when they were ruling Bengal and Bihar, I guess situation would have been different.

And let's accept lack of land reforms is an issue. But what next? The distressed peasant is susceptible to propaganda from everyone. Doesn't mean that propagandist has any solution to offer or is even interested in a solution! The peasant is just a means to achieve the larger aim. It is easy to look at the peasants and come up with simplistic justification that he is rising up in revolt as a reaction to oppression. Yeah, right! There are farmers committing suicide in Vidarbha, why are they not rising up in revolt? Simple answer is that Maoists haven't reached there yet.

There is no harm in activists educating people about their rights, organizing them so that they could raise their voice. Fighting with corporates who are definitely susceptible to wrongdoing in search of profit motive. But a line has to be drawn somewhere if we believe in the idea of India. The Maoists are opposed to the idea of India, the democracy (flawed, but still not autocracy!) and are committed to establishing a communist state on the lines of Mao's revolution (grab power through protracted people's war). One can read about erstwhile Mao-style revolutions, full of nice sounding ideological chit-chat, but with results worse than what existed before.

For some context on land reforms, this is how Mao did it in China. Who is going to guarantee here that our home-grown Maoists are not going to follow this plan (when from aims and objectives to plan of action is all taken from Mao's red book)


  • The thorough land reform launched by the Communist Party of China in 1946, three years before the foundation of the People's Republic of China (PRC), won the party millions of supporters among the poor and middle peasantry. The land and other property of landlords were expropriated and redistributed so that each household in a rural village would have a comparable holding. This agrarian revolution was made famous in the West by William Hinton's book Fanshen. In 1948, Mao envisaged that "one-tenth of the peasants" (or about 50,000,000) "would have to be destroyed" to facilitate agrarian reform.[28] Jen Pi-shih, a member of the party's Central Committee, likewise stated in a 1948 speech that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed."[28] Shortly after the founding of the PRC, land reform, according to Mao biographer Philip Short, "lurched violently to the left" with Mao laying down new guidelines for "not correcting excesses prematurely."[29] Mao insisted that the people themselves, not the security organs, should become involved in the killing of landlords who had oppressed them.[29] This was quite different from Soviet practice, in which the NKVD would arrest counterrevolutionaries and then have them secretly executed and often buried before sunrise. Mao felt that peasants who killed landlords with their bare hands would become permanently linked to the revolutionary process in a way that passive spectators could not be.[29] Actual numbers killed in land reform are believed to have been lower, but did rank in the millions,[28] as there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution."[30] R.J. Rummel, an analyst of government killings, or "democide", gives a "reasonably conservative figure" of about 4,500,000 landlords and better-off peasants killed.[28] Philip Short estimates that at least one to three million landlords and members of their families were killed, either beaten to death on the spot by enraged peasants at mass meetings organized by local communist party work teams or reserved for public execution later on.[29] Estimates abroad ranged as high as 28,000,000 deaths.[28] In 1976 the U.S. State department estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform;[31] Mao estimated that only 800,000 landlords were killed.[28]
 
2. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, etc.: Let's accept again that Indian democracy is flawed. The poor and the destitute really don't have a voice. There is mass scale oppression. So what do we want? I guess most people agree that the democracy itself is the right way to go, the issue is that it is flawed. Fair enough. So now we have some guys who tell us all that is wrong with our current system. So far so good.

But just because the diagnosis of the problem is right, does it mean that the suggested solution is right? It is like someone telling you that your throat pains because of swollen tonsils, and then cuts off your neck as a "solution" to the problem.

The clearest way to think of Maoists is to think of the endgame. Let's assume they are succesful. India has a big revolution. The oppressive rulers are thrown away by a people's protracted war. What next? Real democracy? Nah, we have a single party called CPI (Maoist). Its unelected core committee rules India. Opposition is banned. Elections are not required. Freedom of speech is not even a concept (One of the first people that Mao killed post revolution were the intellectuals. So good luck to Arundhati). The corporates still come and operate at the same places. But you don't even hear about them. As the newspapers only report what is given to them. Which would be the threat posed by anti-revolutionaries.

It is a great thing that India has freedom of speech. People like Arundhati should be free to write what they want to, even if it is trash. There should always be room for dissent. That is what democracy means. For most parts, all bleeding heart liberals have made all kinds of outrageous statements on the Maoist issue and nothing has been done to stop them. And that is the way it should be! So I am with Guha when he writes against the attempts to silence people by force. But all those who feel strongly about it have to look at what happens in Maoist infested areas. What happens when some tribal within Maoist ranks opposes their action? Do you think there is a big meeting where everyone airs their views and a course of action is decided. On the contrary, it is a strict top-down instruction. And anyone challenging the instruction is as good as dead. So much for freedom of speech.

So we love freedom of speech. We want it absolutely. Hence we support those who are ideologically opposed to it! What gives?
 
Land reform is not the only isue. Big Land holdings, exploitation by landlords all add up but The other bigger problem are Caste discrimination,corruption and poverty. The challenge is to break the base of Moasist. This can be done if sincere efforts are done. All these corrupt babus need to be taken care of. Rape and exploitation by police and other forces doesnt help either. The Govt always talk about tackling Armed struggle but is doing a little to take care of this net of corruption. There are some good people but their hands are tied. Support shouldnt be for Moasist ideology or rule but for breaking this net of corruption.

As shown in that well done Abba movie, things reach to these poor people but only on paper.

Also dont believe everything what Arundhati says!! I have never read any of her article. Her most of reports i found are biased toward North Pole :D (based on one or two line what I read here and there).

But yes its a good thing that people like Arundhati are allowed to say what they want. But people should make an informed decision. Remember at one time all America was cheering their forces in Vietnam and the person who raised voiced against it was called traitor and idiot but later whole America's opinion changed and now they see this as a black spot in their history.

Moasist Rule isnt the solution neither forming group like Salva jathum or Ranveer sena but breaking Maoists base and putting Govt house in order is. These Corrupt corrupt officials are also equally obnoxious weeds. They need to be uprooted as well.

Moreover there are 10000 flaws in Indian democracy but the good thing is its moving in a positive direction. Though pace is very slow. But Still!. And when every one moves in a positive direction success take care of itself. The good thing about this whole thing is its not a seperatist movement and I dont think it will be (at least for a little while) in future.


I found the below article worth reading.

**********************************************************************

The Naxal — or Maoist — agitations in the country today are different from, say, the AASU-sponsored violence in Assam or the Khalistan-inspired violence in Punjab in the 1980s, or even the militancy in Jammu & Kashmir. The violence in Assam, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir were orchestrated, at least initially, by close-knit organisations with a clear-cut agenda of breaking away from mainstream India on ethnic or religious grounds. Today’s Naxal movements have no such goals.

Reckoned conservatively, Naxal activity in India today spreads across 90 districts in 10 states: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. A look at this list will convince you that these movements aren’t driven by the urge to break away from the country based on one geographical, ethnic or linguistic drive: at least six languages are spoken by the natives of these 10 states.

But cutting across this diversity, there are some startling similarities about the condition of people living there. To start with, they are poor. Studies show that 85 of the country’s 100 poorest districts are in seven of those 10 states. In the Naxal-affected districts, 32% of the population is below the officially-measured poverty line, compared to 24% elsewhere.

Second, in these districts, state governments have a terrible record of delivering public goods and services. Only 68% of homes in Naxal-affected districts get safe drinking water, in other places, the number is 74%.
Many of these problems have to do with one simple fact: the people living in these areas are tribals who, on paper, receive special rights and privileges but are actually subject to brutal discrimination in India’s caste-conscious society. Even in West Bengal’s so-called socialist utopia, in dry areas where a single source of water, like a well or a pond, has to be shared by many households, the tribal is the last person in queue to get her bucketful.

Babus in state and district administrations are mostly drawn from the local elite, and their sympathies lie entirely with ‘their’ people. So, they pour whatever resources they have in better-off, urban, upper-caste areas. The tribal areas remain backward. What else explains the fact that only 43% of women in tribal, Naxal-affected areas get skilled medical attention during pregnancy, when 51% of women elsewhere get the same care?
If you place a map of India listing its mineral resources over another map marking areas of Naxal influence, the two would overlap almost perfectly. The poorest areas of the country are rich in coal, iron ore and bauxite seams but the ‘curse of minerals’ has gripped the area.

Coal mining was nationalised in the 1970s and, almost immediately, most activities surrounding the actual mining were hived off to efficient private operators: the mining mafia. Around Dhanbad and Asansol in the east, the coal mafia controlled everything: trucking, transportation, the movement of railway wagons and labour contracts. With money came political power. We’ve seen something similar in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, where the Bellary brothers, who control large mining leases, have acquired enough clout to bring the BJP government of Karnataka to its knees.
None of that is good news for the people who live there. The power of local mining overlords makes it easy for them to muscle into tribal land, fell forests and sell off timber as well as the minerals under the ground. This robs locals of land and forest resources. Over time, anger builds up.

It’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the Naxal areas are hotbeds of crime and violence. Research by economist Vani K Borooah, of the University of Ulster, throws cold water on that assumption. After comparing rates of violent crimes, crimes against women and against public order across all Indian districts with Naxal-affected ones, he finds that Naxal-affected areas are in many ways less crime-prone than other parts.
He also finds, unsurprisingly, that urban areas are more crime-prone than rural ones — where Naxals largely operate — that poverty has little role in influencing the number of violent crimes, but riots and arson were more likely in poorer areas. Conflicts over drinking water led to higher crime rates, as did discrimination against scheduled tribes.

Though Borooah finds it hard to explain why criminal activity is lower in Naxal areas than in others, he has a provocative suggestion: "Judging from the experience of Northern Ireland, it is plausible that Naxalites — like the Loyalist and Republican paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland — also enforce law and order in their areas of influence."

The Naxal issue is complex, widespread and rooted in local factors. The government can’t end Naxalism by sending the military into villages and jungles. And it won’t help to club Naxals as terrorists and book suspects under harsh laws.

Last year, a report on Naxalism, published by the Planning Commission, made this accurate observation: "Mobilising the support of the people is also absolutely essential to weaken the support base of the Naxals. The political parties are not playing their role in this regard. The representatives of major political parties have virtually abdicated their responsibility."

Perhaps the only exception to this was Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, which backed a police boycott movement called PCAPA in the western, tribal belt of Bengal. But as soon as the state cracked down on the PCAPA, Trinamool support for it withered.
To get Naxals into the political mainstream, the political mainstream has to make the first move. And to do that, the government has to take the first step to reconciliation. Otherwise, which politician would like to be seen hobnobbing with people branded as Naxals and terrorists?
Abheek Barman---Economic Times
 
Last edited:
kapil.dalal said:
2. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, etc.: Let's accept again that Indian democracy is flawed. The poor and the destitute really don't have a voice. There is mass scale oppression. So what do we want? I guess most people agree that the democracy itself is the right way to go, the issue is that it is flawed. Fair enough. So now we have some guys who tell us all that is wrong with our current system. So far so good.
Click to expand...
kapil.dalal said:
But just because the diagnosis of the problem is right, does it mean that the suggested solution is right?
Click to expand...

If we all know that the Indian democracy is flawed and that the poor and destitute really don't have a voice. Then what is the problem if these poor and destitute want to try out a different form of governance.

Why are we so autocratic about this flawed and illusionary democratic form of governance?

Let there be democracy in choosing the form of governance also. That would be true democracy. It is also one of the basic mandates of UN - United Nations.

India does not have a problem if the Naxals choose Maoism, it is the money which goes into the pockets of the immoral capitalists, the greedy media and corrupt politicians that has the problem. It is because fo these people that poor adavasis and CRPF people are killed.

How would you, me or an ordinary Indian person get effected with what form of governance the Naxals choose for themselves?

Fundamentally, the issue is same as that of demand of the amendment of HMA by Jats. If Jats want to put some additional governance for themselves, why does anyone else (non jats) has any problem.
 
Arvindc said:


If we all know that the Indian democracy is flawed and that the poor and destitute really don't have a voice. Then what is the problem if these poor and destitute want to try out a different form of governance.

Why are we so autocratic about this flawed and illusionary democratic form of governance?

Let there be democracy in choosing the form of governance also. That would be true democracy. It is also one of the basic mandates of UN - United Nations.

India does not have a problem if the Naxals choose Maoism, it is the money which goes into the pockets of the immoral capitalists, the greedy media and corrupt politicians that has the problem. It is because fo these people that poor adavasis and CRPF people are killed.

How would you, me or an ordinary Indian person get effected with what form of governance the Naxals choose for themselves?

Fundamentally, the issue is same as that of demand of the amendment of HMA by Jats. If Jats want to put some additional governance for themselves, why does anyone else (non jats) has any problem.
Click to expand...

Nice try by combining this issue with HMA and Jats. Are you a Maoist recruiter for Jatland..:) ? You know what. That's the issue in Kashmir, Punjab, and North Eastern states as well. That is the issue in Maharashtra where MNS is basically saying that Mumbai is first for Marathis. I can give lots of other examples. Or let's be sensible and not confuse issues.

I admitted that Indian democracy is flawed. And you jumped on that. But when would you admit that Maoist ideology is flawed? It is not only flawed, it is outright autocratic and reprehensible. Why do you gloss over all the issues that are pointed out about Maoist ideology? What about the genocide of atleast 1 million people committed by Mao, which Maoists consider requisite in such a "people's war"? What about rights and freedoms in Maoist ideology? Why are Maoists opposed to elections- forget flawed elections, they are opposed to elections as a principle. According to them, the core committee of "wise men" should rule uninterrupted from elections. The way forward is to improve Indian democracy and not to choose an alternative that is much much worse.

The poor and the destitute have not chosen the Maoist ideology. The majority won't even know what Maoists stand for. Most of them are caught in a battle where they are forced to choose one side in order to survive. Yes, if you have grievances, you may feel attracted by the guy with a gun who promises vigilante justice. But that's the modus operandi of all extremists who fight in the name of a bigger cause- be it Taliban, jehadis, separatists or Maoists. And a nation's form of government is not a mid-day meal that you try it out and discard if you don't like. Ki chalo aaj daal mein mirch daal ke dekhte hain ki kaisa swaad aata hai. It is an irreversible change. Anyways, how do you "try out a Maoist form of governance" in middle of a sovereign India? You carve out a "People's Republic of Tribals" within India where there are no elections, the people's committee governs, etc. etc? If the question is of governance, why don't Maoists fight elections (they now have power too, so they can slug it out and grab power like the other ostensibly powerful groups are alleged to do)?

A flawed democracy, nevertheless, India has lots of positives. One of them being that you and I are free to debate the issue here. People are free to take the opposite side. But I should reject this flawed democracy, which gives me freedoms and rights, and choose an autocracy where core committee's whims become the writ, and a supreme leader rules with no checks and balances. Do Maoists debate within themselves whether their system is good enough or if it has flaws? Do they discuss with the villagers who'd get affected in the battle before launching Dantewada style attacks? Say the villagers say that they don't really want a battle in their courtyard, do the Maoists respect their desire and call off the operations? Say a tribal feels disgusted with all the violence and wants to shun the Maoist path- is he free to do so? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO. The corrupt and flawed state still provides all these freedoms.

I am not sure where you get these assumptions from. Maoists have been on record, saying that their prime objective is to overthrow the Indian state and establish a Maoist one. This is not about tribal areas only. (It makes no difference to me- even if it was about even one district, I'd have been equally opposed.)But FYI- their intention is to have the whole of India in their grasp. And a food for thought- have they really checked with the whole of India if it is interested in their form of governance? No! Their assertion is that their system is best and hence they are going to wage a war to establish the same. So much for making noises about right to choose!

And the UN- lol, I couldn't care less. Please do some research on the UN, their stupendous record in the spread of democracy, people's rights, etc. etc. It is a place where the powerful get their actions sanctioned, not a place where I'd look for moral inspiration.
 
kapil.dalal said:
Nice try by combining this issue with HMA and Jats. Are you a Maoist recruiter for Jatland..:) ? You know what. That's the issue in Kashmir, Punjab, and North Eastern states as well. That is the issue in Maharashtra where MNS is basically saying that Mumbai is first for Marathis. I can give lots of other examples. Or let's be sensible and not confuse issues.
Click to expand...
Well, at the core of all these issues in the issue of "self-governance". Even the HMA issue is fundamentally same, though the magnitude of scale differs hugely.

I do not see any issue if NMS says Mumbai is first for Marathis, or with the people's demand in states of Kashmir, Punjab, and North Eastern states. As long as the National integrity is maintained, what is the problem in having India with different governance practices?

If you look at Mumbai, as soon as power is given for self-governance, the financial equilibrium of India will automatically get corrected. Mumbai score lowest in terms of standard of living of all major cities, still it is the financial hub of India. Why? Just because it houses the head offices of all major industrial houses. How long, and how much effort would it take to shift those head offices to other cities? And wouldn’t it give fair and better opportunities to the elite through the country?

If you look at governance worldwide, the best state/Nation in terms of governance, in terms of ensuring fundamental rights, is US. And one of the reasons is because it practices "self governance" to quite some extent. It allows states/districts to have their own laws.

I admitted that Indian democracy is flawed. And you jumped on that. But when would you admit that Maoist ideology is flawed? It is not only flawed, it is outright autocratic and reprehensible. Why do you gloss over all the issues that are pointed out about Maoist ideology?
Click to expand...
The majority won't even know what Maoists stand for. Most of them are caught in a battle where they are forced to choose one side in order to survive.
Click to expand...
It is not for me and you to decide on the flaws of Maoist ideology. It's the Naxals who want to adopt it so let them decide on flaws and their future path.

The way forward is to improve Indian democracy and not to choose an alternative that is much much worse.
Click to expand...
How do you know that the alternative is much worse? "Self governance" is the future of governance. “self Governance” will become genesis of a unified world - A world with no armies to kill rather just forces to save people.


And a nation's form of government is not a mid-day meal that you try it out and discard if you don't like. Ki chalo aaj daal mein mirch daal ke dekhte hain ki kaisa swaad aata hai. It is an irreversible change. Anyways, how do you "try out a Maoist form of governance" in middle of a sovereign India? You carve out a "People's Republic of Tribals" within India where there are no elections, the people's committee governs, etc. etc?
Click to expand...
It's not a mid day meal, but sure shot way towards improvements in governance.

As long as governance relies on people's choice, there is no issue. It can very well be part of a true democratic India.
And FYI, currently Maoists?Naxals have democracy at the grass root level. That is why people are with the leaders and keep them safe. Otherwise, why so you think so that the police intelligence and operations like Salwa Judum has failed? It is because the leaders are true leaders and people are truly supporting and backing them.

Also, who knows about the future. Let them first give them an assurance of an option. The red paper may change it's shape.

If the question is of governance, why don't Maoists fight elections (they now have power too, so they can slug it out and grab power like the other ostensibly powerful groups are alleged to do)?
Click to expand...
This is one of the root problems. Leave the Naxal areas, even in Haryana or your constituency, name one honest and principled person who has won elections and has successfully challenged the corrupt system? It is the democracy of corruption that is ruling. You cannot expect fair play in it.
 
Arvindc said:


Well, at the core of all these issues in the issue of "self-governance". Even the HMA issue is fundamentally same, though the magnitude of scale differs hugely.

I do not see any issue if NMS says Mumbai is first for Marathis, or with the people's demand in states of Kashmir, Punjab, and North Eastern states. As long as the National integrity is maintained, what is the problem in having India with different governance practices?

If you look at Mumbai, as soon as power is given for self-governance, the financial equilibrium of India will automatically get corrected. Mumbai score lowest in terms of standard of living of all major cities, still it is the financial hub of India. Why? Just because it houses the head offices of all major industrial houses. How long, and how much effort would it take to shift those head offices to other cities? And wouldn’t it give fair and better opportunities to the elite through the country?

If you look at governance worldwide, the best state/Nation in terms of governance, in terms of ensuring fundamental rights, is US. And one of the reasons is because it practices "self governance" to quite some extent. It allows states/districts to have their own laws.




It is not for me and you to decide on the flaws of Maoist ideology. It's the Naxals who want to adopt it so let them decide on flaws and their future path.



How do you know that the alternative is much worse? "Self governance" is the future of governance. “self Governance” will become genesis of a unified world - A world with no armies to kill rather just forces to save people.



It's not a mid day meal, but sure shot way towards improvements in governance.

As long as governance relies on people's choice, there is no issue. It can very well be part of a true democratic India.
And FYI, currently Maoists?Naxals have democracy at the grass root level. That is why people are with the leaders and keep them safe. Otherwise, why so you think so that the police intelligence and operations like Salwa Judum has failed? It is because the leaders are true leaders and people are truly supporting and backing them.

Also, who knows about the future. Let them first give them an assurance of an option. The red paper may change it's shape.



This is one of the root problems. Leave the Naxal areas, even in Haryana or your constituency, name one honest and principled person who has won elections and has successfully challenged the corrupt system? It is the democracy of corruption that is ruling. You cannot expect fair play in it.
Click to expand...

Nehru once said "The facts won't change if you don't like them."

You are overlooking all facts and just making up stuff. Can you give one evidence where Maoists are demanding self-governance? I mean, there is a whole amount of evidence about Maoists aims, strategy, history, etc. There is evidence of their funding from China. They are by definition against electoral democracy. They have not come up with some new ideology- there is massive amount of literature on Maoism as practised and preached in several places. You don't want to look at any of it. So there is nothing more to say.

PS: And what kind of logic is this? That Maoists have grassroots democracy, as seen from failure of police operations!! Police operations failed for years against Veerappan- did he too have grassroots democracy? I request you to have a look at some links on logical reasoning and assertion to understand the flaw in that style of argument.
 
Somehow the impression seems to be that more and force will eliminate the Maosists.

It will not.

Equally eliminating them( even if possible) will not resolve the problem.

Veerrapan survived in maoist dominated areas.The sympathies of the public were not with the government.

The history is pretty old.

No one is, least of all me, is arguing that the maoist/communist way is the way to go. All that creates is another Orwellian " animal farm".

Yet one cannot ignore , that it is the exploitation of the people, that leads to their alienation, and ultimately them taking up arms and resorting to violence.

That latter is the real issue.

No one is addressing that.

Ravi Chaudhary
 
Guys let us look at the stated changes Maoist want to bring -

Land to the poor and landless. Later on cooperative farming is to be established on voluntary basis.
 Indeed a noble cause.
How many of us are ready to give our land to weaker sections of the society??
Does farming it self will solve all the people’s problem?
Are no poor people present in China??

Forest to the tribal people.
 I agree, we need to make tribal’s stakeholders.

End of rule of the rich and the upper caste in villages and uprooting of caste system. Uproot all discriminations based on gender and religion.
 I agree looks like a noble cause.
Has it happened in Mao’s land i.e. China???Then why is social unrest by Uyghur residents in Xinjiang province???

Seizure of the ill gotten wealth and assets of multinational corporations and their local Indian partners.
 So that it can fill the banks accounts of Maoist leaders & workers.Are there no corruption cases in china????


Self determination for the nationalities, political autonomy for the tribes.
 So that India can be broken into 10 parts????

Establish a state by the poor, for the poor where the present day exploiters would be expropriated.
 So that present day exploiters are replaced by new set of exploiters where no freedom is present at all.Whatever maoist say will become a legislation…

Participation of people in day to day administrative work and decision making.
 Good idea.

Social/Economic disparity is not present in china???It is present, a para from wiki…

“Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, growth has fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income and a decline in the poverty rate from 64% at the beginning of reform to 10% in 2004. At the same time, however, new disparities have increased. Income inequality has risen, propelled by the rural-urban income gap and by the growing disparity between highly educated urban professionals and the urban working class. There have also been increases in the inequality of health and education outcomes. Exact statistics are disputed, as there have been reports of China underestimating the poverty rate.[1]”
 
kapil.dalal said:
Nehru once said "The facts won't change if you don't like them."

You are overlooking all facts and just making up stuff. Can you give one evidence where Maoists are demanding self-governance? I mean, there is a whole amount of evidence about Maoists aims, strategy, history, etc. There is evidence of their funding from China. They are by definition against electoral democracy. They have not come up with some new ideology- there is massive amount of literature on Maoism as practised and preached in several places. You don't want to look at any of it. So there is nothing more to say.

PS: And what kind of logic is this? That Maoists have grassroots democracy, as seen from failure of police operations!! Police operations failed for years against Veerappan- did he too have grassroots democracy? I request you to have a look at some links on logical reasoning and assertion to understand the flaw in that style of argument.
Click to expand...

Well, I had already discussed the Maoist's agenda and Maoisim in my privious posts
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...-with-Comrades&p=246399&viewfull=1#post246399
and
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...-with-Comrades&p=246400&viewfull=1#post246400.

Also, let me reiterate, it is for the adivasis to decide on the flaws of Maoism and Indian democracy and then choose their way forward. In case, at the grass root level, the adivasis are unaware of the Maoism. Then, let both, the Maoists and Indian democrats present their ideologies to them and then let them decide. If they go against the Maoists then Maoists support will go and they would have no place to hide. So the problem gets solved both ways. The only thing is to give the adivasis an option.
Yes, Maoists in Naxal area do have democracy at the grass root level. People who have knowledge about the area have said so. I have already given such references.

Also FYI, Veerappan and even Pholan Devi had support at the grass root level. Without support, even a bird can not survive for so many days from so many scavengers, leave aside a human being.
 
ravichaudhary said:
Yet one cannot ignore , that it is the exploitation of the people, that leads to their alienation, and ultimately them taking up arms and resorting to violence.

That latter is the real issue.

No one is addressing that.

Ravi Chaudhary
Click to expand...

If in a family, one child enjoys all full delicious meals and the other gets to fill his stomach only half, then it's not the child that has failed, it's the parents who have failed.

Exploitation of the people is happening because of the failure of governance. So any solution/rectification has to be at the governance level.
 
ravichaudhary said:
Veerrapan survived in maoist dominated areas.The sympathies of the public were not with the government.
Click to expand...

Veerappan mostly operated in the forests lying between Tamilnadu and Karnatka- not a Maoist infested area then or now. The factor he exploited was Tamil-Kannadiga divide, especially during Cauvery water dispute; and the lack of clear jurisdiction on who was to go after him- Tamilnadu or Karnatka police. As for sympathies, he sure had those of some politicians, people and police- very easy to buy if you are running a multi-crore smuggling operation.
 
Ranveer Sena, is a Landlord upper caste creation to keep the peasants ( ryots) in Poverty.

Ravi,Let us not debate the motto of Ranveer Sena.I just wanted to highlight the class difference present in society exploited by Maoist will bring more division in society & thus more bloodshed.

You might not know this, but until 1950 or so, slavery was legal in Bihar and Bengal.

Children of slaves were chattel and were bought and sold.


So who was applying the force- the poor peasants or the landlords?

Now that peasants have risen up, you complain that they the should not use force ???.

But who forced them to use force. There is no moral high ground for complaint!

So why complain now ???

Is violence serving any purpose here?I am not ready to believe that it is people’s fight , it is fight of maoist who are exploiting these circumstances present in society.
If zamindari was not abolished in UP, Rajastan, etc, you would seen the exploitation continue there.

Is exploitation of lower castes not present in Haryana itself??I have myself seen our own caste brothers using lower caste girls for physical pleasure. All she wanted was to collect the remains of Mustard for Fuel purpose.

I agree that exploitation is more in poor areas.


In most of these places , land reform was in name only.

The huge landholdings continued,as did backwardness , abject poverty and total exploitation.

You have to visit Bengal to believe it.

Doesn’t it show that leftist have only populist propaganda??WB was one of the most industrialized states in India.See where they have taken it, have they created jobs/oppurtunities fulfilling people’s aspirations??Are there no poor in WB?

If Left being in govt are not able to bring these equalities in society, Do you think that Maoist can do it by gun??Considering that they share same ideological space , only difference is in their methods. No , Social diaparity is present from centuries,It will take time.Yes govt has been painfully slow to remove these inequalities.


Btw I have visited almost full country expect few states like Karnataka,Kerala, Chattisgarh,Bihar,AP.
 
Last edited:
Arvindc said:
Well, I had already discussed the Maoist's agenda and Maoisim in my privious posts
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...-with-Comrades&p=246399&viewfull=1#post246399
and
http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...-with-Comrades&p=246400&viewfull=1#post246400.

Also, let me reiterate, it is for the adivasis to decide on the flaws of Maoism and Indian democracy and then choose their way forward. In case, at the grass root level, the adivasis are unaware of the Maoism. Then, let both, the Maoists and Indian democrats present their ideologies to them and then let them decide. If they go against the Maoists then Maoists support will go and they would have no place to hide. So the problem gets solved both ways. The only thing is to give the adivasis an option.
Yes, Maoists in Naxal area do have democracy at the grass root level. People who have knowledge about the area have said so. I have already given such references.

Also FYI, Veerappan and even Pholan Devi had support at the grass root level. Without support, even a bird can not survive for so many days from so many scavengers, leave aside a human being.
Click to expand...

Exactly, A tribal dont know what maoist ideology is?...They are lured/exploited by Maoist Leaders....
 
Last edited:
Arvindc said:
Well, at the core of all these issues in the issue of "self-governance". Even the HMA issue is fundamentally same, though the magnitude of scale differs hugely.
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent what u are saying. Not fully though. Moreover there are people who get scared by the name of communism(because of the propangada by America and likes). Socialism is the base of communism so the idea itself isnt bad. Infact its great. Communism has itself 100 variances and communism can have democracy as well thought definition of democracy can differ.

There are two things . Economy and governence. In economy, though communism is great but it isnt the best model, I think neither is capitalism. Capitalism is good where the mass(people) is already lifted upto a standard. Communism can be good where a few control most of the things. Each country is unique so what work for america may not work for us or what work for china may not work for us either. Socialism is needed in some parts still, I think. I think a bit of socialism is good. But if the Govt isnt corrupt. And thats the basic requirement/assumption for these ideal theories(communism,socialism). Isnt it?

When it come to governence, What sort of governece u are purposing? Single party system or some other variance?

I dont like this westminister model which we are following. But i also dont like single party system. Instead I like a model which has two natioanl parties. Like one BJP and one congress.
Each state can have their own regional parties. However these regional parties shouldnt be allowed to contest in MP's elections. They can extend their support to one of the above but they are limited to state Govt.
Something based on the above is what I like though I cant tell u for sure if it will work. But I believe its better. But certainly we need to discard this westminister system and find a new one.

This can be discussed in another thread. I dont want to go off-topic
 
Last edited:
Now SC is also 'Walking with Comrades' ??

This is the worst that the government could have ever got from the Supreme Court.

Terming the developmental policies as "blinkered", the apex court has said that the promised rights and benefits never reached marginalised citizens fuelling extreme discontent and giving birth to naxalism and militancy, which are threatening the sovereignty of the country.

Referring to largescale displacement of tribals from forest land in the name of mining and development, the SC said non-settlement of their rights and non-provision for timely compensation of their lost land has created the worst kind of hatred among them towards development, possibly giving birth to extremism.

"To millions of Indians, development is a dreadful and hateful word that is aimed at denying them even the source of their sustenance," a Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and B S Chauhan said on Monday.

"It is cynically said that on the path of `maldevelopment' almost every step that we take seems to give rise to insurgency and political extremism which along with terrorism are supposed to be the three gravest threats to India's integrity and sovereignty," it said.

The anguish of the apex court brimmed over when it dealt with a case relating to acquisition of tribal land by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd in Sundergarh district of Orissa, which is a Maoist hotbed, and found that those who lost their land were not paid compensation for 23 years.

This extreme example of governmental apathy shook the conscience of a Bench forcing it to ask a series of questions -- "Why is the state's perception and vision of development at such great odds with the people it purports to develop? And why are their rights so dispensable? Why do India's GDP and human development index (which is based broadly using measures of life expectancy, adult literacy and standard of living) present such vastly different pictures?"

It said: "With the GDP of $1.16 trillion (of 2008) Indian economy is 12th largest in US dollar terms and it is the second fastest growing economy in the world. But according to the Human Development Report 2009 (published by UNDP), the HDI for India is 0.612 which puts it at 134th place among 182 countries."

It said the counter argument was that very often the process of development that most starkly confirms the fears expressed by Dr Ambedkar, who had said though politically one man had one vote of equal value, in social life one continues to deny one man one value.

Justice Alam, writing the judgment for the Bench, said this was because despite the philanthropist approach of entrepreneurs and governmental efforts the human factor in the most mineral rich areas have not been able to solve their displacement from forests, despite they being called the oldest dwellers of the area.

On the yet-to be-settled rights of tribals whose land was acquired and no compensation was paid for 23 years, the Bench took assistance from Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam and counsel Janaranjan Das to frame a scheme.

Under the scheme, the Centre being the owner of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd would determine and pay the compensation to the erstwhile landowners. The SC appointed a former judge of the Orissa HC, Justice A K Pasricha, as chairman of a commission to prepare a report on the land acquired within four months and submit a report to the apex court.

http://www.indiaeveryday.com/bollyw...-blame-for-rise-of-naxals-sc-1006-1619375.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top