While it'd be quite foolhardy to condemn "violence" under every and all circumstances, "violence" has its own inherent pernicious dynamic - it almost inevitably brutalises and undermines democratic principles. It is at best a necessary evil, under certain, not all, circumstances.
Having said that, let me propose that Maoist politics - the politics of brute violence detached from and, by its very nature, disallowing mass particiaptive politics - is morally repugnant and has no future either. On a global scale they had in recent years four major hubs of insurgency: Chile, Nepal, Philippines and India. Now they stand wiped out in Chile. In Nepal they have changed track and their position has become uncertain after some striking success. In Philippines, they have apparently suffered decline. In India, 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. As regards state terror, there is hardly any controversy. "Heavy handed and indiscrimante state actions are not only utterly morally repugnant but also largely self-defeating as it on the contrary help to augment the ranks of the rebels. And debases the whole political order in the process." That's what I had posted elsewhere just a while ago. But no blanket justification of "Red Terror" against "White Terror". --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
