[GreenYouth] Re: Lalgarh and the Radicalisation of Resistance: From 'Ordinary Civilians' to Political Subjects?
Quote Most importantly, no words here on the two fundamental fallacies. One, Lalgarh, or Nandigram, is from the most backward hinterland of India. No typical Indian village. Hence even its best experience - say from November 2008 to mid-June 2009 - has a very limited applicability. Two, how the public embrace of the Lalgarh resistance by the Maoists proved to be its kiss of death! *A seven month long massive resistance crumbled in less than seven days! * Quote It is worth recalling here a highly fanciful report carried by the Hindustan Times, the dateline being as recent as June 10 - that is still less than a month back (and yet lies in another era) - incorporating an interview with a top-notch Maoist leader operating in that area: Quote [Q:] How long can they [the Maoists] defend the area from the might of the state? [A:] “I know an action (sic) is perhaps impending,” said Koteswar Rao, or Kishnaji, the second in command of the Indian Maoists, in an exclusive interview to the Hindustan Times. “But let them try once.. It will be the last time they will eye this territory.” (Emphasis added.) Unquote [Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=3e7456f2-6c9e-4...http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=3e7456f2-6c9e-44c1-9b35-3af9ec746d7e ] This was just before the campaign of violence launched by the Maoists sidelining the PCAPA. It started effectively on June 14. The operation of the Joint Forces commenced on June 18. The Lalgarh Police Station, the Ground Zero, reoccupied on June 20. Unquote *A seven month long massive resistance crumbled in less than seven days! * *Who's afraid of the Maoists? At least not the Indian state. It only uses it as a convenient alibi - a manufactured spectre - to crush democratic resistance. * That eminently suits both. That's how Saroj Giri and Buddhadeb both are on the same side to brand Chhatradhar Mahato as a Maoist. The Unity of the opposites! *Not even a pretence of attempt to address the two fundamental fallacies underlined. The deafening silence is only too eloquent. * Unquote Excerpted from the last communication - the concluding part. The response below by sandy bajeli ostensibly responds to that! The deafening silence is only too eloquent. Sukla On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 6:00 PM, sandy bajeli redris...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think so. The State uses any excuse/opportunity to aggrandize its repressive power (a point Sukla has been emphasizing) -- it does not *necessarily* mean that, even in the state's own internal estimation, the threat to it is necessarily particularly great. In a sense, the State *needs* the CPI(Maoist) to justify its repression/aggression -- much in the same way that Israel *needs* Hamas to justify its aggression. Likewise, the Maoists *need* the State's repression to (at least psychologically) self-justify their own draconian tactics. The State and the Maoists each act as the other's enabler in this circular relationship. While it is true that the anti-people state does need the bogey of Naxalism to justify its repression/aggression but can we deduce an inference, in a quite mechanical, cyclical fashion, that the Maoists too *need* the state's repression to (at least psychologically) to self-justify their own draconian tactics, and thus vulgarly distorting the very concept of “the law of unity of opposite”. It appears that Naxals themselves invites the severe repression on them by espousing violence and even seems to glorify and indulge in the idea of being a victim of the state repression. It is also required as a moral (what about political?) justification for their violent activities among its cadres and mentally prepares them for their continuous wars. Foisting such an over simplistic one-to-one casual relationship between the state and the Maoists could lead to an absurd conclusion that Maoists activities ultimately ends up serving the interests of the predatory state not to destroy it. This above stated contention is not only non-dialectical and a historical (if not down right reactionary) but also more crucially hides its own (anti-Maoists) ideological agenda that see both the state and the Maoists as undemocratic and violent and thus clearly mirroring each other. It is typical reflection of the Gandhian formulation that seeks to equate both the oppressors and the oppressed along the same plane and finally ends up criminalizing the oppressed for choosing armed means in their life and death struggle for emancipation. It also believes in the falsity of the armed struggle leading to liberation, which anyways has reached to an dead end. In this fantastic, fanciful formulation of Sayan that “the State and the Maoists, each act as the other's enabler in this circular relationship I find the resonance of what Saroj Giri has once argued, “an unmistakeable element of middle-class self-indulgence” that dissident left revels in by vigorously defending an
[GreenYouth] Re: Lalgarh and the Radicalisation of Resistance: From 'Ordinary Civilians' to Political Subjects?
Response from a friend, on another list:Quote The State uses any excuse/opportunity to aggrandize its repressive power (a point Sukla has been emphasizing) -- it does not *necessarily* mean that, even in the state's own internal estimation, the threat to it is necessarily particularly great. In a sense, the State *needs* the CPI(Maoist) to justify its repression/aggression Likewise, the Maoists *need* the State's repression to (at least psychologically) self-justify their own draconian tactics. The State and the Maoists each act as the other's enabler in this circular relationship. [Here, the best example is how Saroj Giri is out to brand Chhatradhar Mahato as a Maoist as much as Buddhadeb is . And the state-sponsored myth - a statistical fraud - that every fourth Indian district is under Maoist control! . Evidently, even if a corner of a district is affected the whole district is counted in. The Maoists, in turn, gloatingly lap it up and drum up as much as possible. The Unity of the opposites! ] What can break the circle -- in fact, the only thing that can break the circle -- is the emergence of a genuine and widespread self-emancipatory mass movement of the toilers .. Unquote Most importantly, no words here on the two fundamental fallacies. One, Lalgarh, or Nandigram, is from the most backward hinterland of India. No typical Indian village. Hence even its best experience - say from November 2008 to mid-June 2009 - has a very limited applicability. Two, how the public embrace of the Lalgarh resistance by the Maoists proved to be its kiss of death! *A seven month long massive resistance crumbled in less than seven days!* Quote It is worth recalling here a highly fanciful report carried by the Hindustan Times, the dateline being as recent as June 10 - that is still less than a month back (and yet lies in another era) - incorporating an interview with a top-notch Maoist leader operating in that area: Quote [Q:] How long can they [the Maoists] defend the area from the might of the state? [A:] “I know an action (sic) is perhaps impending,” said Koteswar Rao, or Kishnaji, the second in command of the Indian Maoists, in an exclusive interview to the Hindustan Times. “But let them try once.. It will be the last time they will eye this territory.” (Emphasis added.) Unquote [Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=3e7456f2-6c9e-44c1-9b35-3af9ec746d7e ] This was just before the campaign of violence launched by the Maoists sidelining the PCAPA. It started effectively on June 14. The operation of the Joint Forces commenced on June 18. The Lalgarh Police Station, the Ground Zero, reoccupied on June 20. Unquote *A seven month long massive resistance crumbled in less than seven days!* *Who's afraid of the Maoists? At least not the Indian state. It only uses it as a convenient alibi - a manufactured spectre - to crush democratic resistance.* That eminently suits both. That's how Saroj Giri and Buddhadeb both are on the same side to brand Chhatradhar Mahato as a Maoist. The Unity of the opposites! *Not even a pretence of attempt to address the two fundamental fallacies underlined.* *The deafening silence is only too eloquent.* Sukla On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:02 AM, sandy bajeli redris...@gmail.com wrote: (It seems the specter of Naxalism is haunting the ruling establishment (from the official left to the right) to such a magnitude that they have increased the budget of internal (their security) by unimaginable 33% , see the article,( Lalgarh effect on security kitty, The Telelgraph). It is perhaps the fear of an increasingly real scenario in the future when the increasingly politicized and organized masses will rise up in total defiance of the armed machinery of the state. For the ruling class the threat that appears in the form of Maoists is apparently real and palpable. Today there is one Lagarh tomorrow there could be many. So 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*”(Saroj Giri) UAPA is the name of the perfect weapon in thier hands. So anyone who “helps”, stay in “touch” or “campaign” for the dreaded terrorist, the Maoists might be charged for abettment of terrorism (or even liable to be killed in a fake encounters by the outlaws in Khaki). But what is gravely problematic is how the state will ever going to define and make a clear cut distinction between “helping”, staying in “touch” or “campaigning” in order to make a case against such Naxal supporters. It is so blurred and elastic and so wide in its scope and reach that it is terrifying. In the hands of the real and more powerful terrorist, which is the state it is becomes an awesome weapon to put all the dissentors in the jail in the name of fighting Naxalism. It appears that the crisis ridden ruling classes (the poor
